CAGD 170 (Video Game Design)

Project 3 Powerpoint



Project 3

Group Number 8
Team TronTris

Lucio Salt (Game Developer / Designer)

Danielle Tishkun (Game Developer / Project Manager)

December 06, 2017

Lucky Die? is a board game designed for strategy and chance with aspects like Monopoly where the players have to collect four checkpoints and return to the beginning in order to win the game. The players must choose the paths wisely depending on the number of spaces to move and where would you be landing that may have consequences or reward. 

Our target audience ranges from early in middle school age to 56 to put a cap on it, but the age range is very wide so that most can play the game with the most understanding. There really isn't a maximum age threshold. The game is more geared towards those with a love of strategy, predicting moves and chances to get the most out of it. 

We had a few problems in the start of the development process with many ideas running through ours minds, and barely remembering to write down most of what we had and then scrapping what was thought of as too much for concepts. Once we had pinned down what we wanted to work on, I wanted to do the board because many ideas were racing through my mind. The other ideas wouldn't allow the players to finish the game in our proposed time limit of fifteen minutes. So I had to stay with the more basic of the design with its simplicity so as to not overwhelm the players. Another problem we had was the action cards having to much variety and some cards being useless and others as overpowered. We scrapped the useless cards and limited the overpowered ones and nerfed those a bit. We increase the number of the other cards to increase the scarcity of the OP cards.

The first play testing helped us to understand what needed to be added of taken out. The first suggestion was the OP cards having too much power for anyone, so my partner limited its effects to be more specific and not overall to defeat the player before they've even had a chance. Another suggestion that was mentioned from the first and the second play testing was the board map was a bit too small, so for the third play testing I've added more spaces and route and spread out the checkpoint markers, with more action card spaces added also. Other than those, there has been few issues with the game and we've been getting overall good reviews. 

The work was divided evenly among ourselves with my partner getting most of the props and myself creating / designing the board and bringing whatever materials were needed. The rules were created by her from the ideas I gave her and she created the rule system based on those. The some words were lost in translation, so I cleaned up the rule sheet to be more fluid. 

For future projects, what I've learned is to not get carried away with many ideas and to stick with simplicity. Complexity is a disaster once you start putting a lot of effort into what you've invested in and it turns out to have a game breaking mechanic some play tester finds. The ideas we had would've been necessary to further broaden what we had in mind, but it was a fleeting moment where we didn't jot down the idea and we lost it for good, so also keep a pen and paper in reach whenever a moment like that comes. The ideas we've had for our game and the designs we did made the game and we've noticed during the play testings that there were really few errors, so we didn't have much to change. However; I still believe we still should've added more to that to make the players have more fun and enjoy it more, but we were too set on our game since it had good reviews. 

Project 2

Group Number 7

Lucio Salt (Game Developer / Designer)

Shawn Paregien (Game Developer / Project Manager)

October 23, 2017

M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) is a board game designed for strategy of nuclear nonproliferation where the players have to get the most military power to win the game. The players must use the troops wisely to take over the opposing player's territory and obtain enough might to create an ICBM, the ultimate deterrent to prevent the opposing side from creating their own ICBM.

Our target audience ranges from around high school students ages and up, so the ages range from 14 to 60+, but really we don't believe we have a maximum age threshold. This game is geared more towards people with a love for strategy and a sense of competition just like the United States and the USSR during the nuclear races, both sides producing bigger and badder nuclear weapons. 

We had a few problems from the beginning concepts of the game being too complex and we toned the game down to a much simpler concept. When we observed the players facial expressions, we took note on what part are they either frowning at or smirking or grinning at. During the first playthrough, the complaints were only towards the boundary markers of the game being to hard to keep track of because the markers were to slim and flat and that itself blended in with the colors not popping out enough. My partner took that feedback and made them bigger than a quarter and more noticeable with solid dark shadings of the color. 

The second playthrough had fairly good reviews and the feedback was mainly from one playtester was towards the pain of keeping track of the player's own value points. Everything was provided to ensure the tracking to be made simpler such as a pen and notepad for both players to use to keep track of the heart system and the military might value they've accumulated. 

From beginning to end, the task completions were divided up evenly because we both knew what either of us were capable of doing and either of us would volunteer to finish certain task we knew we were good at. All the tasks were completely finished, so nothing went undone. I was the one that created the board from my partner's idea of a game that we've been wanting as well as the borders and the value distribution among the board. My partner bought the remade boundaries, soldiers, and hearts. Finishing the game project, the development went by pretty smoothly with little to no problems.

As previously mentioned, the tasks were evenly divided and completed and there was nothing in regards to task completion issues. For the gameplay, we've made it fairly simple to understand and if there was still questions, we explain to them if they were having a hard time understanding, this has so far been relatively no issue. 

For future works, one thing I'd change would've to be starting out simple, not getting whisked away with one thought and being completely overwhelmed with more then I could handle. This has happened quite a few times during our initial planning phase and we realized after trying to make a game centered around these ideas that it was full of holes that we had no idea of how to fix, so we've scrapped more than forty percent of our ideas.  I will also keep better track of what games served as a good example for what I wanted in a game and organizing my notes to get a better idealization of what I wanted my game to be when I reach the final product and solve all feedback / issues that a majority of playtesters will enjoy playing.  

Project 1

Group Number 7

Lucio Salt (Project Manager, Game Developer)

Grant Churchill (Designer, Game Developer)

September 20, 2017

Raider Vs. Adventurers in The Temple of The Golden Peep is a broad game designed for fun for the whole family. The goal of the game is to race to the center of the board to reach for the Golden Peep and be the first player out of the temple. As well as avoiding the opponent and the various traps spread throughout the map. 

The target audience are children ranging from the ages of 5 to 11 years old, mostly geared towards those with a sense for adventure and competition. 

The problems that occurred in the gameplay initially was the fact that we made the game tailored for young children, so for our original idea we shortened up the game. However, during the first playtesting, I noticed the first group playing the game rapidly and the movements with repetition. There was no sense of enjoyment and competition, but a sense of get it done. So before they've reached the middle, I added the original idea and had them play Cat and Mouse. The players' attitudes changed and went more competitive and upbeat as they were stealing the treasure back and forth. Other then that, there was a small issue of the lacking of traps up for grabs, so that was solved for right away with little to no difficulty. 

All the task were taken care of in an orderly fashion, so development went by smoothly, Nevertheless, I would change from the beginning about my future development projects is to start out simple and to figure out the flow.