Blog Post 4

Group 8

Food Feud

Food Feud is a 2 to 4 player food trivia board game targeted for high schoolers and older. Players have one minute to correctly answer as many questions as they can in one minute, and the number of correct answers determines how many spaces they move forward. This game is catered to achievers.

During the playtests, the feedback from the players was mostly positive. The concept was well received, and all the players enjoyed playing the game. However, there were a few critiques that I really took note of. A lot of our players thought that there should be more of a mix between hard and easy trivia questions. Many of the questions I had written were pretty difficult and/or obscure, meaning that there were a lot of guessing and wrong answers for many of the players. One other thing I noticed was that people who cook tended to do better, as they have experience with food. I also found that some of the questions were too specific, and therefore many of the players got those same questions wrong. One particular trivia question that was pretty tricky was the tomato trivia. Since I had to make 4 choices, I had to use more specific terms like stone fruit and multi-fruit. All the players had never heard of those terms before, and thus was confusing. One issue that came up was how fast players went through the questions. Although I had made 32 cards, the one minute time limit kind of put players under pressure, and ended up going through the questions extremely fast (guessing answers) in an effort to try and get as many questions in as possible, and thus the most correct answers/guesses in one turn as possible.

In terms of development, since the concept was my idea I worked on the bulk of the game. I created the board and trivia card. I had Royya read over my game overview to help create a simple and easy to understand rulesheet. Royya was unable to attend the playtest session due to unforeseen circumstances, so I had to run the sessions by myself though it was not difficult to do alone. 

Playtesters playing Food Feud

A suggestion one of the players had in order to be able to stretch the amount of cards was that the player still has a one minute time limit, however if they get a question wrong, it goes to the other player. This would mean that players cannot just randomly guess, and encourages the player to look over their choices and give it some thought. Since the questions are pretty broad and span many different categories in the food world, having the cards organized by category or difficulty would let players get a bit of a variety, and ease them into the trivia. When asked about whether or not they learned something, all of them responded positively, saying that it was a good way to learn about different cultures and the food they eat. In particular, many of the cards were about Asian food and that was the cards most of the players had the most interest in. 

Moving forward, I think I would continue to create even more cards varying in degrees of difficulty and a wide variety of cultures. I might also take food trivia suggestions from outside of an Asian-dominant Discord server to get more trivia from different cultures. One concept I have is an accompanying mobile app with the trivia on it, as well as an in-app timer and counter. This way, there will always be new food trivia being updated, continuing to further the replayability of the game. 

Mobile app concept designs

Portfolio Post 3

We’re Group 4, and our game is called Sticks & Stones. It is a competitive educational building board game for elementary schoolers who love to build, compete, and do math. Players can build territory, destroy enemy’s territory, and complete math problems in order to gain more materials.

Our game is a two player board game. Players each start with 5 wood and 3 cobblestone. Each resource is color coded. Player one’s wood and cobblestone is purple and green, respectively, and player two’s wood and cobblestone is red and blue, respectively. They play on a 7x7 grid game board, and can place materials on the grid to build a territory. Placing 3 of the same material in a row will gain players extra points at the end of the game, should it still stand. Territory can also be destroyed by using resources. To destroy one wood, it costs the destroyer one wood. To destroy one cobblestone, it costs the destroyer 1 cobblestone or two wood. Once players are out of materials, they must solve a math problem-addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division- in order to gain more materials. As players continued to gain more resources, the problems would increase in difficulty. Each turn of the game consists of two actions, and the game lasts 6 rounds of turns. The player with the most points at the end of the game wins.

Playtesting Sticks & Stones

While Stanley and I were reworking the game, we both put our heads together to figure out solutions to the issues that arose during the last playtest. We both put in equal effort to make these changes, discussing new ideas before deciding what we would keep and what we would pass over. Both of us worked on the rule sheet, and Stanley was in charge finishing it up. I created the math problem flashcards and answer sheet.

During our playtest, there was a lot of initial confusion on the rules. While the rules made the game more enjoyable and more straightforward, the wording was unclear and confusing. One of the biggest points was the definition of “move”. Since our game wasn’t a traditional board game where players take their game piece and move along a path, the word “move” was misleading. It was also unclear what defined a move, as players would place more than two total resources per turn. Many playtesters suggested we should define what a move was, since our definition of move was defined as building territory, destroying an enemy’s block, or gaining resources. Building territory wasn’t clearly defined as placing one block per move, so players placed all their resources on the board at the beginning.

Another common issue that came up was territory building. This was different than the previous issue, as people were placing multiple pieces of material in one space on the board. This goes back to our rules being unclear. Our rules state that players can build territory by placing material on the grid, however we did not specify how many pieces can be placed on each space. This led to players piling pieces onto the board, which we quickly cleared up. This also caused players to skip over collecting resources during the first round of the game, which is a strategy some players took after the issue was resolved.

The third biggest issue was the point system. It was confusing in multiple ways. First, it seemed like the building aspect was not as prominent, so point scores were not as high. Second, the pattern system was not clarified. It was unclear that it had to be 3 of the same material in a row, and also unclear that it could be either horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. It was suggested that we add pictures to demonstrate ways players can gain points, and how they can gain double points via having 3 in a row. Additionally, we found that it was difficult to calculate double points when certain patterns were made. This required some logical reasoning that I believe to be a little bit complicated for an elementary schooler to understand, so a chart might be necessary to help determine points.

The pink balls (Player two’s wood) is a demonstration of one of these patterns.

The game could use plenty of tweaks, mainly the rulesheet. In addition to rewording some of the instructions, pictures are a huge addition. One of the playtesters noted that younger players, much like players in general, want to skip over the instructions and tutorials and just want to jump right into the game. He suggested that pictures be used to further simplify the instructions and add illustrations to the instructions in order to give a faster visual direction, so that players can jump into the game faster.

Going forward, I definitely think that this game has a lot of potential, even in this very basic prototype stage. Rewriting the instructions and adding more actions, and maybe even a story could make this a great board game for students. I think in order to achieve that, having more playtesters outside of the in-class playtesting would be extremely useful so that we can have even more iterations of the game to review. This way we can spot-check for small things like wording in the instructions.

ePortfolio Post 2

Sticks & Stones

Group 4

Our game is called Sticks & Stones, a two player board game targeted towards elementary school kids. The premise is to destroy your opponents blocks and build up your own, and whoever has the most territory at the end of the game, wins. The catch is, if players want more materials, they must engage in a mental transaction - that is, they must solve a logic or math problem to gain materials, and the problems get harder as they purchase more and more materials.

Our rules were very simple. There are two players who play on a 7x7 grid game board, and start off with a certain amount of materials (5 wood planks and 3 cobblestone). These materials are used by each players to build their own territory, and also used to destroy the enemies’ territory. The game pieces were color coded, so that purple and green represent wood and cobblestone for player 1, respectively, and red and blue represent wood and cobblestone for player 2, respectively. Once players run out of materials, they may request more materials, but must solve a logic puzzle or math problem in order to purchase them. As players continue to purchase more and more materials, the puzzles and problems get harder and harder. Players build and destroy in turns, until the 5 minute play time is up. The player with the most territory at the end of the game wins.


During our playtests, we found that while our rules were relatively clear, they were too few. Most of our rules consisted of the basic mechanics of the game and did not provide much context for what players can and cannot do. This caused confusion amongst players, as players played moves that caused issues within the game, as well as some overpowered moves. Our rules were also quite vague, and requires a lot of fine tuning and details to make them better and improve the game. This limited amount of vague rules made the game extremely basic, so many playtesters suggested different features be added to the game. Some suggested that the purchasing of materials be its own turn, while others suggested new puzzle ideas.

Another very common criticism we received was that the game was not for kids. It was too basic and bland, and was not very stimulating for a young mind aside from the puzzles. There was a severe lack of structure for kids, and ended up being a pretty basic game with very little to keep kids engaged. One of the suggestions was to make the puzzles harder, as some said the math problems were too easy and made acquiring materials too simple. Others said having a different system of answering questions could make the purchasing of materials more fun, i.e. flash cards. The game was also pretty slow paced, so having a faster pace would make the game much more exciting.



For Sticks & Stones, I believe we need to make the game more exciting to play. Even though this game is an educational game, it should still be fun and stimulate the players more. One way to do that is to make the game themed. Right now, there is no story or reason for the objective of the game, so the game is already unappealing. By adding a theme and story, players are more enticed to play the game and have some fun. Another way to add some excitement to the game is by timing the problems and puzzles. By giving players a limited amount of time to solve a math problem or logic puzzle, it not only makes the problems more challenging, but also much more exciting as well. This also makes the game feel like it is going at a bit of a faster pace as well.

Sticks & Stones was not originally designed to be a 2 player versus game, but rather a co-operative building game. Both Stanley and I put our heads together to come up with the original concept with each of us throwing out ideas and considering them before fitting them into the game or discarding them. However, towards the end of our process we realized we needed to make it a competitive board game and so it was then turned into a battle board game, with building as its core concept. Stanley did most of the creative work in coming up with the ideas, while I wrote them down and worked on formatting and a little bit of imagery.

CAGD 170 ePortfolio 2

Sticks & Stones

Group 4

Our game is called Sticks & Stones, a two player board game targeted towards elementary school kids. The premise is to destroy your opponents blocks and build up your own, and whoever has the most territory at the end of the game, wins. The catch is, if players want more materials, they must engage in a mental transaction - that is, they must solve a logic or math problem to gain materials, and the problems get harder as they purchase more and more materials.

Our rules were very simple. There are two players who play on a 7x7 grid game board, and start off with a certain amount of materials (5 wood planks and 3 cobblestone). These materials are used by each players to build their own territory, and also used to destroy the enemies’ territory. The game pieces were color coded, so that purple and green represent wood and cobblestone for player 1, respectively, and red and blue represent wood and cobblestone for player 2, respectively. Once players run out of materials, they may request more materials, but must solve a logic puzzle or math problem in order to purchase them. As players continue to purchase more and more materials, the puzzles and problems get harder and harder. Players build and destroy in turns, until the 5 minute play time is up. The player with the most territory at the end of the game wins.

[Image of pieces breaking up this paragraph]

During our playtests, we found that while our rules were relatively clear, they were too few. Most of our rules consisted of the basic mechanics of the game and did not provide much context for what players can and cannot do. This caused confusion amongst players, as players played moves that caused issues within the game, as well as some overpowered moves. Our rules were also quite vague, and requires a lot of fine tuning and details to make them better and improve the game. This limited amount of vague rules made the game extremely basic, so many playtesters suggested different features be added to the game. Some suggested that the purchasing of materials be its own turn, while others suggested new puzzle ideas.

Another very common criticism we received was that the game was not for kids. It was too basic and bland, and was not very stimulating for a young mind aside from the puzzles. There was a severe lack of structure for kids, and ended up being a pretty basic game with very little to keep kids engaged. One of the suggestions was to make the puzzles harder, as some said the math problems were too easy and made acquiring materials too simple. Others said having a different system of answering questions could make the purchasing of materials more fun, i.e. flash cards. The game was also pretty slow paced, so having a faster pace would make the game much more exciting.

For Sticks & Stones, I believe we need to make the game more exciting to play. Even though this game is an educational game, it should still be fun and stimulate the players more. One way to do that is to make the game themed. Right now, there is no story or reason for the objective of the game, so the game is already unappealing. By adding a theme and story, players are more enticed to play the game and have some fun. Another way to add some excitement to the game is by timing the problems and puzzles. By giving players a limited amount of time to solve a math problem or logic puzzle, it not only makes the problems more challenging, but also much more exciting as well. This also makes the game feel like it is going at a bit of a faster pace as well.

Sticks & Stones was not originally designed to be a 2 player versus game, but rather a co-operative building game. Both Stanley and I put our heads together to come up with the original concept with each of us throwing out ideas and considering them before fitting them into the game or discarding them. However, towards the end of our process we realized we needed to make it a competitive board game and so it was then turned into a battle board game, with building as its core concept. Stanley did most of the creative work in coming up with the ideas, while I wrote them down and worked on formatting and a little bit of imagery.

This process was very efficient, however starting with the correct specifications for our game would make the process even more efficient. Being able to take our core idea and implement it into a new game was a cool learning experience, and I will definitely be using that method in the future.

Reverse Court: Playtesting

District 12 (Group 12)

Game: Reverse Court

Reverse Court is a modified version of Solitaire. This version of the single player game utilizes the joker cards, cards stacked ascending order on the main game board, and the drawing of two cards from the deck. This game is targeted towards people of all ages.

Our rules were based around the original rules of solitaire. The first was the reversing of the way the cards can be stacked. The Ace and the King switched roles, that is that the Ace is the only card that is able to be moved to a blank space on the game board, and the king is placed in the [insert that word]. Cards are stacked in ascending order rather than descending. The second rule is that jokers may be exchanged then discarded for another card on the bottom of one of the piles. Our third rule was drawing two cards instead of one or three from the deck. This made it so that it was slightly more difficult to play the game, and created the need for a bit of strategy within the game.

During our playtests prior to presenting them to the higher classes, my partner and I tested the difficulty and success rate. The game proved to be a bit more challenging with the need to adjust to the ascending order, however the inclusion of the joker cards and being able to pick cards from the unrevealed cards in the piles on the main game board helped balance it out. The drawing of two cards also added to the difficulty, and made us think more about how we could play our cards in order to use the cards we were not able to previously.

During our observations of the 470 students playtesting our games, a lot of them seemed confused by our rule sheet. We received plenty of complements praising our game, one person even complementing that out of all the games he had played in the past two hours, ours was most unique and fun to play. Our main issue was, again, our rule sheet. The biggest suggestion we got was to use bullet points or numbered lists to help organize our rules and make them more clear to the player. Aside from the rule sheet, during the gameplay the students got very invested and concentrated on the game, a couple going as far as to actually win the game because they were so interested in it. All the reactions we got from the playtesters were positive.

In our group, both of us worked on each part of the project equally. Not one person did more work than the other and each part of the project was worked on together in person, and not apart communicating via email or text. With this strong immediate communication, the project went smoothly and efficiently.

This partnership in our group worked really well. Each of us had something to contribute and everything went pretty smoothly. Both of us offered ideas that were considered, and later playtested to see if they would work. During the playtests with the more advanced students, each of us saw our mistakes and both made a note to correct the issues within our game. In the future, I would hope things could go as smoothly as they did for this game. However, as the chance of that happening is very unlikely, I hope I can take what I learned that worked within this project and apply it to future groups and partnerships in order to hopefully replicate this great experience within this project.