Restaurant Rivals
Playtest Date: November 4, 2026
Game: Restaurant Rivals (Prototype V1)
Team Members: Paprika, Emma, Olu, and Saharat (Game)
Playtesters: Michael and Krystal
During our in-class playtest, Michael and Krystal tried our browser-based restaurant management game, Restaurant Rivals. Each player managed either a City or Countryside restaurant. Their goal was to earn the highest final score by making decisions about money, resources, advertising, and reputation.
The recorded playtest lasted approximately 23 minutes and covered three days of gameplay. (Link 1, Link 2)
Figure 1: The screenshot of the first digital prototype.
Key Observations and Potential Changes
1. Players needed more context and clearer instructions.
At the beginning, players were not entirely sure what the game was about. One player said,
“I don’t understand what this is… Maybe the context?”
They also had difficulty understanding the Build phase, buying ingredients, and how food, tables, and customers were connected. Later, one player said,
“I think I understand now.”
What we could improve: We should add a short introduction explaining the restaurant setting, the goal of the game, and the basic rules. Instructions during each phase could also help, especially explaining that serving one customer requires one table and one ingredient.
2. Managing money and calculations was confusing.
Players often asked how much food they needed, how much would spoil, and whether they were actually making money. One player even commented,
“I’m so bad at math, this is the worst game.”
The daily bill also made it difficult to understand the difference between income and expenses.
What we could improve: We could show estimated costs and revenue before players make decisions. The daily recap should also separate income, expenses, and remaining cash more clearly. We have already restored some calculation hints that were removed before the playtest.
Figure 2: A screenshot of a playtester buying ingredients.
3. The competitive elements made the game more fun.
Once players started understanding the game, their interactions became much more interesting. One player said,
“It’s fun to buy the advertisement.”
Opening the restaurant also created excitement. Players started role-playing as restaurant owners and teasing each other about their decisions. Later, one player commented,
“And this is really fun.”
What we could improve: I think we should keep these elements because they made the experience more engaging. Advertising, bluffing, different restaurant identities, and the moment customers arrive seem to be important parts of the game. However, we need to explain the bluffing mechanics and the order of each phase more clearly.
Figure 3: A screenshot of a playtester buying ads and bluffing.
4. Players questioned the balance between City and Countryside restaurants.
Players noticed that the City restaurant earned $12 per customer, while the Countryside restaurant earned $8. They felt this difference might make the game unfair. Another interesting point was that having a higher reputation or spending more on advertising did not always lead to better financial results.
What we could improve: We should test the balance between the two restaurant types over the full five days of gameplay. We also need to make the effects of customer demand, restaurant capacity, reputation, and randomness easier to understand before adjusting the numbers.
Figure 4: A screenshot of the restaurant performance for each day.
5. Some game interactions were confusing or took too much time.
Players were unsure why certain buttons became disabled when they ran out of money. They also wondered whether some purchasing decisions could happen simultaneously rather than requiring players to take turns.
What we could improve: We should explain why buttons become unavailable and make the purchasing process easier to follow. We could also explore simultaneous decisions for some phases, as long as this does not take away from the competitive experience.
What We Learned
Overall, I think this playtest showed that our core game idea has potential. Michael and Krystal seemed to enjoy the advertising, bluffing, customer arrivals, and the opportunity to manage different types of restaurants. However, we also realized that players needed quite a lot of explanation before they could make decisions on their own.
For me, the biggest takeaway is that making a game playable is not just about having interesting mechanics. Players also need to understand what is happening and why their decisions matter. If they spend too much time trying to figure out the rules or calculate everything, they may miss the fun and learning opportunities we want to create.
One interesting observation was the difference between financial success and reputation. By the end of Day 3, the City restaurant had more cash but a lower reputation than the Countryside restaurant. I think this creates an interesting tension between earning money in the short term and keeping customers satisfied over time. However, we still need more playtesting to see whether these trade-offs are fair.
For our next playtests, we would like to introduce pre- and post-assessments to see whether players develop a better understanding of restaurant economics and financial decision-making. We did not use these assessments in this playtest, so we cannot make any conclusions about learning gains yet.
Figure 5: A screenshot of a playtester buying ingredients.
Figure 6: A screenshot of a playtester buying ads and bluffing.
Figure 7: A screenshot of the restaurant performance for each day.
