Works of Art
Created by Abhi Desai, Phuc Tran, Jenny Mai, Oumnia Chellah in CS247G Spring 2024
Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eq1rvTofScD_s1t-q00Z4rHx87AOe2ut/view?usp=sharing
Link to final prototype: https://www.canva.com/design/DAGDeLGJDoM/fu_3aUWZUhWgIEGES4GFog/edit?utm_content=DAGDeLGJDoM&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link2&utm_source=sharebutton
PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1inw5I5Z_HPcqLgqAISrX8AysjFqGTD5n/view?usp=sharing
Artist Statement: In “Works of Art,” we immerse players in the world of art collecting, combining strategic gameplay with the excitement and novelty of art auctions. Our intention is to create an engaging and dynamic experience that is intricate and appeals to the thrill of competition. Players must navigate the balance between accumulating valuable artworks and deciphering the authenticity of potential pieces to outmaneuver their opponents and build the most valuable collection. The game is designed to foster critical thinking as well as negotiation skills, as players decide when to bid, not bid, or employ their Connoisseur cards to influence the outcome in potentially unexpected ways. We also introduce elements of chance as well as strategy through the inclusion of fake/counterfeit artworks that can be either negative or positive, depending on how they are used by the players. This adds complexity to the game, encouraging players to think like real art collectors and dealers. Our goal is to not only entertain but also educate players about the art world. “Works of Art” includes famous pieces such as Vincent van Gogh’s Starry Night as well as information about notable art museums–this allows players to both learn and have fun. Overall, “Works of Art” gives players an opportunity to hone their strategic skills, learn about the art world, and have a great time alongside those they play the game with.
Other Considerations:
We intentionally shifted our test to accommodate for different canvas/art sizes so that we do not crop or modify how the art is presented to the players. We felt that this was appropriate and more respectful, so in our design the titles, and descriptions are not all aligned on the same vertical axis.
Additionally, we chose to hand-draw our front cover and back cover minus the frames (we are bad with shapes) as a fun way to include our own art into the game. Each portrait has the name of the artist/teammate below it!
We also spent some time working on a physical box which is pictured below:
[ front cover of physical box ]
[ back cover of physical box ]
Concept Map:
[ concept map of Works of Art ]
Initial decisions about formal elements and values of your game:
Initially, we wanted our games’ player interaction patterns to be a mixture of cooperative play and multilateral competition. Throughout a game of Works of Art, players compete to acquire the most expensive art collection. We made competition possible in our game with the auction procedure, which enables players to bid for the artworks that they want, thus competing for the artworks that earn them the most points. In addition to competing with one another, players can also help each other by employing the exchange procedure. In order to make cooperation possible, we initially gave players different roles in the game. For instance, player A’s role could be collecting Cubist paintings, while player B is looking for Picasso paintings. In this scenario, players A and B would be competing against each other (Picasso paintings are also cubist paintings) at times, and can also help each other (if player A has a cubist painting that is not a Picasso, they can exchange it). By mixing cooperative play and multilateral competition, we were hoping to give players more agency when defining what their dynamics with other players look like. For instance, while some players may opt for making enemies through pure competition, other players seek allies in the game that can help them obtain the paintings they need. Therefore, we decided to integrate both cooperative and competitive elements in our design to enhance our game’s strategic complexity and enrich the social interactions within our game.
While we initially set construction as the most important objective in Works of Art, we also decided to add outwit as another side objective in our game. Consequently, we added counterfeit cards as a resource in our game that players can use to trick other players. When a player receives a connoisseur card, they would have information about whether a certain painting is counterfeit. They can use this information to warn another player or trick them into paying a really high price for a counterfeit painting. When we decided on this mechanic, it was difficult to define the proper rules that would make this mechanic effective and fun in our game. Specifically, we needed to figure out how to make players reveal that information at a certain point in the game, whether counterfeit cards should be purchased (and if so, at what price?), and lastly, whether players can still enjoy the game with counterfeit cards in place (we considered the scenario where players find our game boring because the paintings that they collect end up being counterfeit too often).
We initially chose money, connoisseur cards, role cards, and artwork cards as the resources available to Works of Art players. The connoisseur cards (or counterfeit cards) would reveal to a player whether other artworks are counterfeit, thus helping the player make an informed decision as to whether to purchase certain paintings and bringing them closer to victory in our game. The role card would give a player a mission in the game, which would earn the player bonus points if they accomplished it successfully. As we’ve mentioned above, we wanted the role cards to allow for both competition and cooperation among players. Therefore, we chose role cards that intersect with one another, by choosing a variety of art movements for the role cards (Cubism, Post-Impressionism, Realism, etc.) and artists across these movements (Picasso, van Gogh, etc.). As for the money, it would be used in our game to purchase artwork. Lastly, the artwork cards would contain information about the artwork, the artist, and the art movement that it belongs to.
We decided on three different procedures that can help our game reach its objectives: in Works of Art, players can exchange, auction, or sell. We’ve discussed how the first two procedures – exchanging and auctioning – encourage our players to compete and cooperate. The selling procedure, on the other hand, helps players navigate the money resource. Initially, we envisioned that players would have a fixed amount of money at the beginning of the game that they could spend on artwork. Since we didn’t want players who run out of money to lose interest in the game or get bored, we added the selling procedure to our game as a way for players to make money.
Consequently, we initially set a rule that each player can select only one of the three procedures per round. We hoped that this would allow players to be creative in coming up with their own unique strategies to win the game. Players also have to keep in mind how much money they have and how many artworks are left in the game. We hope that the rules, resources, and procedures that we set in place can create a positive experience for our players.
Testing and iteration history
Iteration #1: Conception
[ First mockup ]
Our first conception of Works of Art was a game where players collect artworks, but there are counterfeits that are slightly off which players could use to deceive other players. Our idea was that players had an x number of minutes to memorize authentic pieces using a guide/master sheet and the auction/turn based portion of the game would start. To drive competition and as an incentive to buy certain pieces over others, we wanted each artwork to belong to sets such as artist, movement and medium.
From here, we started brainstorming other mechanics such as role cards, connoisseur cards which could be an alternative way to rely on what artworks are fake. We thought it would be interesting to include role cards that give players different bonuses, so players have an initial direction on how to approach the game, and it also adds more anticipation in what artwork cards are being drawn. We were concerned that our initial idea of having duplicates and a master sheet that players can study beforehand would limit how replayable our game is. For instance, after several rounds players can easily differentiate between the duplicates and we would lose a core mechanic of our game. Thus, we proposed having connoisseur cards which identify specific pieces as counterfeit while leaving the larger subset of cards as authentic. Each player would draw a connoisseur card at the start of the game. This would also give a “you know something that I don’t” dynamic that we were interested in experimenting with.
Furthermore, we also thought it would be fun to have players strictly acquire artwork through auctions or trading/selling to other players rather than having players draw a card and add it to their hand. Thus, we started playing around with the idea of currency. While seemingly simple, the mechanics of currency led to many questions for our team. Particularly, how to balance the flow of money and the initial amount that players receive at the start of the game. Additionally, we wanted the player who drew the card to start the bidding price for the auction. We recognize a potential issue could be that players draw and then set the starting bid as an insanely high number with no intention of purchasing the artwork. This would cause players to be discouraged from participating. To address this, we required that the player who draws the card must purchase the artwork at the starting bid, if no other player chooses to bid against them.
Iteration #2: First Prototype
[ Mock Up, First Ver. ]
Using our conceptions from iteration #1, we created an initial rough prototype by printing a few artwork cards, role cards, and connoisseur cards. We cut a few slips of paper to act out as money and had players start off with $1500 like in Monopoly.
We realized that we did not have a concrete idea for our game’s end condition. For this iteration, we chose to end the game when all artworks have gone through circulation (there are no more artwork cards).
Some questions that we wanted to answer through this first prototype was:
- How effective are the categories that players should match in the artwork cards?
- How much currency should players start off with? How do players make money (should we continue to give them money, should it just be solely through selling with others?)
- Were the counterfeit cards balanced? Were they fun to play with?
- Did the game take too long to reach its conclusion? When should we stop the game?
While building the prototype, our team was also feeling overwhelmed by the mechanics, specifically the counterfeit cards as it posed dangers of fairness and being unbalanced at times. We were worried that our players would also feel this way. To explore other ways to set up this game, we chose to build out two prototypes and compare them.
The first prototype followed many of the mechanics from our conception. We played tested this version together as a team and noticed that having mediums as a category for set collection felt skewed since there were more oil paintings present than other medium types. We also noticed that the roles and how we set up the artwork cards caused very limited competition during the auction phase. Most of us ended up having to purchase the artworks at the starting price.
The second prototype used a different mechanic for auctioning, and the idea was to sneak in a few counterfeits in the artwork cards. Instead of players drawing the artwork cards, a host would draw them and set a starting price. Players would vote if they believed the actual value of the piece is higher or lower. Players who guess incorrectly would be eliminated, and a new price is called from the host and the process repeats until there is one person standing. The winner would then obtain the artwork card. While this version eliminated some of the difficult nuances of connoisseur/counterfeit cards, there were concerns about the replayability of it, especially if players memorize the prices beforehand.
[ Mock up, second ver. ]
The next day, we brought our first prototype to class to see if our play testers felt a similar sentiment. The play test and feedback were like that of our own experiences. Another key concept that one of the play testers mentioned was that artworks should not be the same price (all of them were worth 100). Additionally, having players stop once all the artwork cards were played felt too long. Players did not compete too much with each other. Lastly, the counterfeit dynamics were not too obvious throughout the game.
Iteration #3: Second Prototype
[ More refined mock up ]
The main change for this iteration were the artwork cards. Our team wanted to add more overlap between the sets so that players are more inclined to auction against each other. We chose to have removed mediums from our set categories and added museums instead. The main reasoning for this was the medium and art movement had a strong correlation therefore it was difficult to find a variety of mediums for a given movement.
From here, we made sure that there was an equal number of artworks that fell under each set. To do so, we had 4 museums (The Museum of Modern Art, ) with 4 movements (Post-Impressionism, Neo-Impressionism, Contemporary, Symbolism) each. Each museum had at least one artwork from each movement, and we had a total of 20 cards. By having a smaller number of cards and much more overlap, we were hoping for more engagements and high bidders in the auctions.
We also changed the initial amount of money that players get to $500. Since we wanted to know what the bare minimum amount of money was needed for each player and decided to remove role cards to see if the freedom of choosing caused players to bid more.
We had a few more playtests for this iteration, including one from class. We were able to verify that our new artwork cards were much more effective this time around, which was exciting!
From our feedback, observations, and our own experiences, we felt that the small number of cards combined with the connoisseur cards led to more counterfeit than authentic cards, and a difference in power based on whichever connoisseur cards they drew. Additionally, since most of our connoisseur cards targeted certain artworks, it would eventually be easy to memorize which ones are targeted and avoid purchasing them.
We were also hoping that reducing the artwork cards size would lead to the game ending quicker while keeping our original end condition. We learned that this was not the case. Lastly, $500 was too small of an amount, and players found it difficult to earn more money to continue auctioning. We also realized that money becomes more significant over time especially when one player saves their money, and the other players spend it all towards the beginning. Once one player had a significant amount of money over others, it was easy for them to get the exact artworks that they needed since no one else could afford to outbid them.
Iteration #4: Semi-Final Prototype
The goal of this iteration was to make a more final and higher fidelity prototype, which meant designing the front and back cover, designing all of the cards (connoisseur, artwork, and evaluation cards).
We also chose to change our end condition so that players end the game after 3-4 rounds, depending on the party size since auctioning off 20+ cards was too lengthy in past iterations. We also noticed that there was no mechanic for players to recover after spending too much money, so we decided to give players an additional $200 at the end of each round, so that they are still able to participate.
One of our worries was that 5 player and 4 rounds with addition of players getting 2 cards each at the beginning would not add up correctly since there would be more rounds than cards. To address this, we chose to add an addition 10 cards – totaling up to 30 artwork cards!
The play test for this prototype went pretty smooth. The only major observation that we noticed was that in one play-through players kept their artwork cards faced up and in the other play-through players kept it faced down.
Iteration #5: Final Prototype
[ Final Iteration with addition of Counterfeit cards ]
After the feedback we got from the final play test day, our team brainstormed ways to add more excitement into the game. We thought about looking back at our initial ideas and brainstorming ways to make counterfeits a more powerful mechanic to the game. Our concern and why we chose to pivot from it in the first place was that the counterfeit cards would deem multiple cards fake, causing imbalance.
To address this concern, we decided that counterfeit cards can be duplicates of the artwork card with a different back side and with the words ‘FAKE’ on them. Players can draw two of these cards at the beginning of the game and would have different knowledge of which artworks are counterfeit. Players can then replace the artwork cards with the counterfeit cards during evaluation.
We thought adding more deception back into the game would create more excitement. We also decided to give players a connoisseur card to start off with at the beginning to create more action in between rounds.
Works Cited
Artwork Cards:
Van Gogh, V. (n.d.). The Starry Night. The Museum of Modern Art.
Klimt, G. (n.d.). Hope, II. The Museum of Modern Art.
Kruger, B. (n.d.). Untitled. The Museum of Modern Art.
Roth, D. (n.d.). Solo Scenes. The Museum of Modern Art.
Seurat, G. (n.d.). The Channel at Gravelines, Evening. The Museum of Modern Art.
Atherton, J. (n.d.). Christmas Eve. The Museum of Modern Art.
Van Gogh, V. (n.d.). Sorrowing old man (‘At Eternity’s Gate’). Kröller-Müller Museum.
Gauguin, P. (n.d.). Atiti. Kröller-Müller Museum.
Signac, P. (n.d.). The dining room, Opus 152. Kröller-Müller Museum.
Seurat, G. (n.d.). The Canal of Gravelines. The Museum of Modern Art.
Boccioni, U. (n.d.). Unique Forms of Continuity. The Museum of Modern Art.
Van Gogh, V. (n.d.). The Potato Eaters. The Museum of Modern Art.
Courbet, G. (n.d.). The Calm Sea. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Böcklin, A. (n.d.). Island of the Dead. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Pissarro, C. (n.d.). Woman at the Gate. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Toulouse-Lautrec, H. de. (n.d.). The Englishman. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Bradford, M. (n.d.). Duck Walk. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Daubigny, C.-F. (n.d.). Landscape with a Sunlit Stream. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Monet, C. (n.d.). Rouen Cathedral, West Facade. National Gallery of Art.
Redon, O. (n.d.). Five Butterflies. National Gallery of Art.
Vedder, E. (n.d.). Father, Son and Donkey. National Gallery of Art.
Cézanne, P. (n.d.). Still Life with Apples and Peaches. National Gallery of Art.
Fritsch, K. (n.d.). Hahn/Cock. National Gallery of Art.
Homer, W. (n.d.). Salt Kettle, Bermuda. National Gallery of Art.
Cross, H.-E. (n.d.). The Evening Air. Musée d’Orsay.
Signac, P. (n.d.). Rue Vercingétorix. Musée d’Orsay.
Sérusier, P. (n.d.). The Talisman. Musée d’Orsay.
Cézanne, P. & Redon, O. (n.d.). The Cardplayer. Musée d’Orsay.
Herbelin, N. (n.d.). Emmanuelle et Efi. Musée d’Orsay.
Herbelin, N. (n.d.). The Etretat Cliffs after the Storm. Musée d’Orsay.
Front Cover:
Mathena. (n.d.). BORDERS AND FRAMES – Background Black Frame. Clean PNG. Retrieved from
https://www.cleanpng.com/png-borders-and-frames-picture-frames-clip-art-wooden-809898/.
Toonsteb. (n.d.). Vintage logo in flat line art style. Freepik. Retrieved from
https://www.freepik.com/premium-vector/vintage-logo-flat-line-art-style_45144235.htm. 
