This week, I played the game Ticket to Ride during game night to understand Competitive Analysis as one of the designer’s toolkit.
This is a game where you use three actions to finish your strategic layout. I think it is different from the game designed by our group in the following three ways:
1. Different Faction Assignment
In this game, all players fight for themselves. It uses a free-for-all mechanic, which led to conflict and blocking dynamics, and that led to a challenge aesthetic. At certain times, several players might also team up to target the leading player.
On the other hand, our game randomly divides all players into three different parties, and everyone works for their own party’s interest. Our game uses a teamwork mechanic to kill (vote out) as many enemies as possible, which led to cooperation and competition dynamics, and that led to a fellowship aesthetic.
This difference gives players a completely different experience. In Ticket to Ride, players feel a stronger sense of participation because you cannot hide behind your party and slack off. No one will help you win the game; you can only rely on yourself. Therefore, you will actively think about strategies, plan for the future, and hold back your opponents in every round. Because of this, all players will keep playing until the very end, and no one will lose out on the remaining game experience due to being knocked out early.
2. Ease of Participation
Ticket to Ride only needs 2 people to start, and can take up to 5 players. Its core rule relies on a simple three-choice action mechanic (draw cards, claim a route, draw destination tickets) to occupy railways until the game ends. This design first allows the game to start easily without needing a lot of people. Second, the simple actions allow players to quickly learn the rules and then enjoy the fun of competitive analysis.
In contrast, our game needs at least 10 people to start, which raises the bar for starting the game. Also, the interwoven actions mean players have to constantly spend time thinking about whether the current action has changed, while also thinking about strategic cooperation. This makes the game a bit complicated, and it is not as fast to get into the zone as Ticket to Ride.
3. Sense of Control and Reward Mechanism
The sense of control and reward mechanisms are also different. In Ticket to Ride, every player can see changes in their personal score through their own actions in every single round. They even get a huge sense of achievement after finishing a whole railway line. This reward mechanism is continuous throughout the game.
Looking at our game, the reward feedback is not that timely. Most of the time, the satisfaction of victory only comes to one party at the very last moment of the game. Ticket to Ride is more about open strategic confrontation, so the sense of control feels more real. Our game is more about psychological warfare without showing your identity, so a sense of control is not that easy to get.
