Well, that was stressful. After spending some time in vocal chat detailing the three concepts we had in for this brief. Through the use of quick slides describing the prototypes or ideas each student had in mind. The groups disscussed and deliberated amongst one another what would work, what is preferred, which proposal we think would work well; which leads us to Jack and I’s own project.
Taken from Jacky’s blog – this is the criticism and conclusions we drew before deliberating on which game we’d choose move on with:
“Railwaymaker: needed development, and more refining. I believe it lacks strucuture, there were no instructions to play a round. The rules regarding the card placement needed to be clarified too.
Matching war: A theme was absent, however it had clear rules. The mechanics were simple enough and quick to understand.
Labyrinth: Balance of gameplay is heavily skewed towards one player, other player could be left with nothing to do for a lot of the game.”
Labyrinth was chosen out of the three games we presented, which frankly came to me as a surprise. I expected the Matching Pairs to not make it, but the Railway card game seemed as fleshed out as Labyrinth was. In hindsight, I feel like the latter had a clearer destination, and a few qualities that (probably) steered the two of us to work on it.
- Unique card designs.
- Competitiveness.
- Player agency through constructing the maze.