LO-FI user testing #1

Our first ideas mainly consisted of very interactive 'problem' type of mechanics. Players had to work together and had a shared objective. We made many components to support this style of gameplay but it backfired quite harshly. We already implemented the 'character' system but this wasn't the problem. The 'problem card' itself didn't spark much excitement or engagement. Furthermore, the solving of this mock problem was too confusing and users didn't enjoy skimming through all the given information/tools.
There was too much 'thinking', as in, figuring out how all these different components work. We had to simplify everything and set our priorities on the user engagement, not 'cool systems'.

LO-FI user testing #2

Still utilising the character mechanic, and scrapping the problem cards; we decided to try-out 'question cards'. These were much easier to grasp and were quickly understood. They didn't kill any of the participation or cause confusion. The mock questions were well received and players liked learning about these little snips of information. Which was, in turn, our original goal. To entertain and trick seamless education as part of the gameplay.

Problems that arose were mainly consistent of the design. Players grabbed stacks of cards or didn't know if they belonged to them off the bat. We still hadn't decided on how the game would exactly be played, or what the objective would be.

But since our first successful mechanic was finally in place, we could quickly make decisions on the other components. We decided to work with a looping circle of tiles on a board where players would encounter these questions. Further mechanics like: reaching the middle and collecting artefacts, naturally came after a lot of brainstorming.

HI-FI user testing

We mostly tested our board game's cards and gameplay systems, since those were available to testing during the HIFI week. Also, our main source of engagement comes from these components, the boards are straightforward and used for mapping. Although, in reality, you can't assume these things.

Feedback from our user-group was supportive and encouraging. The gameplay systems seem to (finally) be working well. After these tests we learned about some mistakes in the manual and tried to fix them.

The arrow symbol in the rules was confusing and some spacing was off.

We even changed some rules after gaining feedback. There will now only be 1 winner and we made it so players are unable to cheat the question, which was brought to our attention by users as well.