Feedback for Ingeniators
Nov. 21st, 2010 11:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nemorathwaldThe winner of U-Con's local semifinal of the 2010 Rio Grande Game Design Competition is "Verlatical"! Congratulations to the designer, Ross Atkinson.
Here is the feedback I received for the game I entered, "Ingeniators".
After I received this feedback, it didn't take me long to condense Ingeniators down to its purest recognizable form. Unfortunately this version loses the thing I liked about it the most: self-interested co-operation. But it's still fun.
The other thing I learned is that few people are confident in how Ingeniators should be pronounced. (In-Jee-Nee-Ay-Ters.) This feedback came exclusively from folks who I know to be highly literate.
Here is the feedback I received for the game I entered, "Ingeniators".
| Scoresheet criterion, on a scale of one to ten. Each column is 1 of the 7 playtesters. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 1. Decision Driven: How much is the winner determined based on their decisions, as opposed to luck factors? | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| 2. Originality | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| 3. Wait Time: How much time do you spend without interacting with the game/other players? | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| 4. Unpredictability: How often is the outcome of a turn/round known before it ends? | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 |
| 5. Broad Appeal: Would you teach this to someone who is not a serious game player? | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| 6. Replayable: Do you want to play it again soon? | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| 7. Interactive: Do the player decisions impact other players? | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| 8. Equal Opportunity: Does every player have an equal chance of winning regardless of turn order/role? | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| 9. Fun | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| 10. Simple to Learn: The rules were clearly stated and communicated. | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Total | 29 | 30 | 37 | 32 | 48 | 36 | 47 |
| Tie Breaker: How would you rate the overall game & game playing experience? | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 |
The message is unambiguous. While the game I designed appeals strongly to its own target market (such as playtesters # 5 & 7), there is clearly a need for a more casual version. Many of the playtesters were grandparents and teens who didn't seem engaged.
- Fairly simple, but there are some gray areas requiring the clarification of a designer or experienced player.
- Not saying it's a bad game, just not my thing. Was difficult to grasp all the rules/possibilities on a first play.
- I like the originality of game. I feel a little overwhelmed with the number of patterns & powers. I could see some gamers over-analyzing what they should do & taking a lot of time. I wonder how easy it is to self-exploit his own invention for points but that might be resolved with others flipping/clearing the tracks... so might be OK.
- There are some little tweaks that would be very helpful, like the scoring mechanism and the stacks of tiles. Both are very easy to knock over.
- Definite potential.
- The pieces were kind-of hard to tell apart. It was fun but it hurt my brain a bit.
- Very cerebral, almost to the point of causing brain malfunction.
- Overall this was fun!
After I received this feedback, it didn't take me long to condense Ingeniators down to its purest recognizable form. Unfortunately this version loses the thing I liked about it the most: self-interested co-operation. But it's still fun.
The other thing I learned is that few people are confident in how Ingeniators should be pronounced. (In-Jee-Nee-Ay-Ters.) This feedback came exclusively from folks who I know to be highly literate.
