- Does an argument/debate mechanic add to or detract from the fun of the game?
- This is important to answer because the point of the game is to gain insight into fellow players, and debates can be a great way to flesh out ideas. Depending on how this happens though, it could make the game too long and mute the fun over time.
- Our prototype will differ in the instructions, as there would be no extra physical elements for this mechanic.
- My guess is that the arguments don’t need to be formalized in debate, but can develop through the gameplay.
- How can we balance the fun with potential fear of judgement inherent in situations where inner thoughts are being revealed?
- A game that includes rankings needs to be set up properly to avoid judgement and closing off. We want players to lean into the fun, and so the tone of instructions and ground rules will be key.
- In this prototype, we will want to make sure to name discomforts early in the instructions and have a light tone to show the spirit of the game.
- Given the proliferation of social games, I think we can successfully find the right balance.
- Do we need points to support the fun?
- Points are interesting for us because they could improve competitiveness and engagement, but could also lead to people trying to “win” as opposed to sharing openly. Our challenge is to incentive open sharing through the points.
- In this prototype, we will likely assign a point to the person who has the closest mirror of the player’s ranking with bonus points for accuracy. If this detracts from fun in playtesting, we will remove it.
- I think a simple points system could be helpful to give people an incentive they are going for. Intrinsic motivation is always nice, but few things beat the dopamine hit of gaining points.
