Feedback for Ingeniators

Userpic
Matt Arnold
November 21, 2010

The winner of U-Con's local semifinal of the 2010 Rio Grande Game Design Competition is "Verlatical"! Congratulations to the designer, Ross Atkinson.

Here is the feedback I received for the game I entered, "Ingeniators".

Scoresheet criterion, on a scale of one to ten. Each column is 1 of the 7 playtesters.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1. Decision Driven: How much is the winner determined based on their decisions, as opposed to luck factors?

4

4

4

4

5

4

5

2. Originality

3

5

5

3

5

4

5

3. Wait Time: How much time do you spend without interacting with the game/other players?

3

3

4

3

5

5

5

4. Unpredictability: How often is the outcome of a turn/round known before it ends?

3

3

4

4

5

3

4

5. Broad Appeal: Would you teach this to someone who is not a serious game player?

1

1

2

1

5

2

4

6. Replayable: Do you want to play it again soon?

2

2

3

2

4

4

5

7. Interactive: Do the player decisions impact other players?

5

4

5

4

5

5

5

8. Equal Opportunity: Does every player have an equal chance of winning regardless of turn order/role?

5

4

5

4

4

3

5

9. Fun

2

2

3

3

5

4

5

10. Simple to Learn: The rules were clearly stated and communicated.

1

2

2

4

5

2

4

Total

29

30

37

32

48

36

47

Tie Breaker: How would you rate the overall game & game playing experience?

3

3

5

5

7

9

_

  • Fairly simple, but there are some gray areas requiring the clarification of a designer or experienced player.
  • Not saying it's a bad game, just not my thing. Was difficult to grasp all the rules/possibilities on a first play.
  • I like the originality of game. I feel a little overwhelmed with the number of patterns & powers. I could see some gamers over-analyzing what they should do & taking a lot of time. I wonder how easy it is to self-exploit his own invention for points but that might be resolved with others flipping/clearing the tracks... so might be OK.
  • There are some little tweaks that would be very helpful, like the scoring mechanism and the stacks of tiles. Both are very easy to knock over.
  • Definite potential.
  • The pieces were kind-of hard to tell apart. It was fun but it hurt my brain a bit.
  • Very cerebral, almost to the point of causing brain malfunction.
  • Overall this was fun!

_

The message is unambiguous. While the game I designed appeals strongly to its own target market (such as playtesters # 5 & 7), there is clearly a need for a more casual version. Many of the playtesters were grandparents and teens who didn't seem engaged.

After I received this feedback, it didn't take me long to condense Ingeniators down to its purest recognizable form. Unfortunately this version loses the thing I liked about it the most: self-interested co-operation. But it's still fun.

The other thing I learned is that few people are confident in how Ingeniators should be pronounced. (In-Jee-Nee-Ay-Ters.) This feedback came exclusively from folks who I know to be highly literate.

Comments


none

Leave a Comment

Enter your full name, maximum 100 characters
Email will not be published
Enter a valid email address for comment notifications
Enter your comment, minimum 5 characters, maximum 5000 characters
Minimum 5 characters 0 / 5000