The game is essentially a participatory form of art. While predicated upon my vision and informed by my knowledge of the subject, it is to be presented to the public and based upon the feedback, the game evolves and improves. The prototypes are previously introduced in the Production Log. In my practice, I have chosen to use the Agile principle. While it is predominantly associated with software development, the cycles of ideation production feedback and reflection, I have found suited for a process of game creation.
Initial findings:
Closed tests:
In my initial prototype, I have prioritised game resolution and the feeling of agency (Interactivity in Arnetta's 2010 model). Both during my initial prototyping sessions with friends and during the Do-torial session as a part of my course the game has played and concluded successfully within 1.5h for a four player experience. The first prototype of the game had no limits as to the amount of Biomass a player can obtain through multiplying and thus some turns took extraordinarily large amounts of time. In the following games, I have chosen to impose arbitrary limits to Biomass gained or spent, although the returning players found them oppressive and not fun. The core mechanics of the game have been consistently described as intuitive and enjoyable, once the initial confusion was resolved. The game needed better compiled and redacted rules. In the early stages the Adaptations and the Agendas were decided by a roll of a dice. During these closed playtests, I have had a pleasure to play with both my friends, my coursemates, members of school staff as well external researchers. Worth mentioning is the fact, that the game took markedly faster to resolve when playing in a physical space with physical objects. The dice serve as counters and moving pieces over the game board physically is more intuitive and requires less explanation than it does in a virtual space. Occupying a physical space also expediates maintaining discussion and sharing instruction. Often, the post-game free form feedback turned itself very valuable. For example: a researcher explained me the use of bacteriophage treatments on the antibiotic resistant bacteria. Due to my games modular nature, I have managed to incorporate it as an Event card.
In the future I am looking forward to including more such information in the game. Another unexpected observation was the viability of two-player variant of the game. While the game involving four players tend to resolve within an excess of an hour, with some players feeling overwhelmed, the two-player variant takes usually less than half an hour to play (shortest recorded playthrough ran at 24 minutes 37 seconds. Another major contribution from the closed tests is the introduction of cards. Initially, the Agendas (later renamed Directives) and the Events were decided upon by the roll of a dice. That tied the number of them to the number of dice combinations. In the newer versions of the game the dice mechanic becomes replaced by the card decks. It further lends to the modularity of the game, as now after the game, the Event deck can be modified to represent different conditions and new Directives can be added or removed from the game either for the balancing purpose or as an expansion in the future. The criticisms of the game involved being sparse on the scientific subject matter, although I had an expert microbiologist appraising the interactions within the game as representative of real microbiota.
Later Findings:
Open Testing:
After producing the third physical prototype, the game was ready to enter the open testing. Although the call-out was produced and shared on social media, no volunteers were reached this way. All of the involved playtesters were reached through direct invitation as either work collegues or members of sports clubs. Overall, it managed to produce a mix of participants of different demographics and experience levels. 5 playtests were ran with 10 different participants and combinations thereof. The playtests were ran in cafés and pubs and refreshments were offered as an incentive. The shortest playthrough took 24:37 minutes to resolve while the longest (four player variant) took 1 hour and 47 minutes, mostly due to distractions. Moreover, every single game played did successfully conclude. Another promising sign, is the players leaving each playthrough commenting on the gameplay and discussing their strategies for the next playthrough. It hints at the successful implementation of the Increasing Complexity principle discussed in the Arnetta's paper. A SurveyMonkey anonymised questionnaire was distributed and filled in, but upon encountering a paywall the data handling has moved to JotForm.
The results can be found clicking the link. Only five out of ten participants have filled their questionnaires after the migration to JotForm. While the results were overwhelmingly positive, the sample size is small and the setting has to be accounted for. For example, while only three out of ten participants were women, said women became three out of five responders to the survey. While boardgames, by their nature are meant to offer a pleasurable activity, perhaps personable, relaxed setting of the playtests might have confounded the results. Further testing in a more neutral environment with a selection of researchers and participants could help improve the data reliability. While, I believe the survey is well designed for the purposes of the study, it sacrifices the free-form feedback previously gained on the closed tests. I believe the two methods should be cycled and supplemented. I have contacted multiple local game stores within the Liverpool Area and while I am now in contact with all of them. Shortly before publishing this log, I have reached out to the Crit Game Hub game store management and we agreed to host a playtesting session, but it did not fall through, as most of the local players were busy with a card-game tournament going on at the same time. That being said, the project has been realised in a challenging time frame and if it is continued I am confident there will be more testing opportunities as I keep receiving interest from both the returning and the new players.
Overall, the things I am happy with:
-The game meets the Identity, Interactivity and the Increased Complexity imperatives of the game design.
-The game promotes discussion and interaction.
-Traditional (physical) game design expediates gameplay.
-Game plays and resolves consistently.
-The players report increased mastery over the game.
The areas that need further work:
-Instruction booklets need to be redacted, laid out and improved. A collaboration with a graphic designer would be beneficial.
-Testing needs to be more extensive and conducted in a more formal setting.
-Survey testing needs to be supplemented with focus groups testing.
Annetta, L. A. (2010) ‘The “I’s” Have It: A Framework for Serious Educational Game Design’, Review of General Psychology, 14(2), pp. 105–113. doi: 10.1037/a0018985.
Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.033
Luong, T., Salabarria, A.-C., & Roach, D. R. (2020). Phage Therapy in the Resistance Era: Where Do We Stand and Where Are We Going? Clinical Therapeutics, 42(9), 1659–1680. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.07.014
Comments