“Tweets of Truth” Playtest 1 – Team 6
- Date: 11/9/23
- Demographics: 5 CS377G students, 3 M, 2 W
Observations + Feedback
- “Man this is hard, this is so much information” while initially selecting username/tagline to play
- Advantage for people caught up with news & current events
- Lots of fake/real combinations (with username as fake & tagline as real)
- Confusion around whether players get more points for a successful fake/fake combination than a successful fake/real combination
- Players want to defend their plays – room for deception?
- Trying to manipulate/defend with real-world facts?
- There should be something for a real/real combo played even if the judge doesn’t choose it
- Usernames just tend to sound faker than taglines
- 3 points for real/real for player if it gets chosen by judge
- -1 point for judge for each real/real played but not selected
- Consider other forms of media – pictures? AI-generated?
- This could be easier digital – player had a hard time holding all the cards and differentiating between which were fake or real
Implications + Potential Changes
- Implementation of retweets for all players rather than having a judge
- False news can hurt your reputation & true news can improve your reputation & no tweet is neutral
- Make usernames/taglines as cards & make sure labels are visible
- Continue developing game mechanics to make the game more of a system