Do players feel that the objective and consequences of our game feel fair?
- Our game is inspired by the tragedy of the commons. We’re currently considering having all players lose if the their shared resource runs out. However, if one player is in last and decides to just deplete the resource because they feel like they have no chance of winning, the other players in the game may feel that the stakes are too lopsided.
- We probably are going to brainstorm alternative consequences for when the shared resource is depleted and try different ones to test how it feels.
- I imagine without someway for players to stop a bad actor, other players will probably feel like its unfair.
Does the game feel like it has enough depth to be fun?
- Although our game is quite simple right now, we’re not sure if it has sufficient depth. If the game is too shallow players will quickly get bored and won’t be compelled to play.
- For this prototype we can brainstorm different additional mechanics to add depth to our core mechanic of a finite resource.
- In its simplest form, I feel like there might be a set winning strategy that players could use which would result in our game losing novelty very fast. But it will be a real challenge to add depth to the game without making it feel convoluted.
Does giving players different objectives give the game more depth or does it only add complexity?
- This is important because its possible to add complexity to a game without actually adding much depth.
- Our group could try adding various mechanics to the core mechanic of our game to test what novelty emerges.
- I think this will be the main challenge. I’m not sure yet what the best way to enhance our main mechanic is yet but I think limiting communication might be an interesting path to explore.
