Week 11 - Reflection

This week in our class we play-tested and prototyped a variation of Battle Battle, an interactive dice game where you fight against an opponent. Our task was to create a variation of the game with the concept of villains driving the narrative aspect of the game. For our version of the game, we decided it was best to emulate a boss rush mode in which players would have to work together to defeat a series of challenging bosses. While our game had a strong concept, our team struggled to implement balance, decision-making, and overall complexity to keep the player engaged. I believe our biggest shortcomings were making the game balanced as during the first playtesting it was apparent that players found the game frustrating.

For context, our game used specific roles to complement different ways to play the game. A damage dealing class, as well as a medic, were some of the few classes offered to players. For example, the damage-dealing class, the fighter, focused on damage with the off trait that it had low health. Meanwhile, the medic focused on healing others while dealing a low amount of damage. Varieties like this were meant to offer players a cooperative experience in which everyone supports each other towards one final goal, destroying the boss. However, during the first playtesting players found the game horrendously unbalanced with a game over in the first two rounds.

I think this was an important lesson for us to give the game more playtesting time and work towards a more unified balance. When the balance was shifted toward unfair, players left our game feeling unsatisfactory and wanted a better experience. In return, we shifted the game towards a balanced state that included more health and tokens for the players. This not only gave them a fighting chance against the boss but prolonged the game longer for them to use their abilities.

Taking inspiration from our feedback and Zach Hiwiller’s chapter on decision making, we implemented more complexity in the game in the hopes of creating a better player experience. We implemented trade-offs in which players were given options to attack or defend their position. For example, players can go for the obvious decision to attack the boss or offset that action with a passive defense action in which players will gain tokens. We wanted situations like these to emulate a decision-making choice for players to strategize and coordinate with other players. I think when it came to the second playtesting, however, this didn’t exactly go to plan.

Overall, though, it was an important lesson for me and my team to learn about balance. It’s certainly not easy to balance a game, let alone create complex moving parts that help contribute to the quality of the game.  With the upcoming board game project, I look forward to carrying these lessons onto the next project.