Kat and Chris were very optimistic about the game and soon the round commenced. As we explained the rules, it seemed much easier than last week considering we had made passports instead of a rule sheet. Everyone had the rules in front of them in a little booklet as opposed to reading a full page paper. The adjustments we had made were clearly advantageous this round to the smooth game play. There were noticeable improvements and the flow had clearly improved from last week. Although some of the small technicalities were explained as they emerged, the game seemed to flow quite smoothly. Kat and Chris seemed engaged in the game which was pleasant as the round put competition to a whole new level. Accusations were made and we played for 3 rounds. Although there was no winner by the time Professor Parks had called time, there was a tie for first place. As for feedback, Chris and Kat did provide some helpful tips and suggestions. It was interesting how they had input great suggestions that we did not notice. It is this aspect of play testing that emerged. We learned that one cannot simply play test once with one set of people and gather an accurate and reliable impression of the game. Some of the suggestions included to have a separate card where it delineates specific traits that the character was playing. This would eliminate the unnecessary questions and confusion over ambiguous questions. The topic of the fairly prevalent parallels between the languages one spoke, birth place, and favorite weapon emerged as well. It seemed moot that there were such parallels as one could simply answer a question with a trait that occurred within both CIA agents and double agents. This was definitely one of the most crucial suggestions. In addition, Chris had stated that the passports contained bland text which were not easy on the eyes, especially for those of older age. The suggestion was to bold or accentuate the headers and criteria for the traits in order for heightened visibility and quicker access. This was definitely something that should be changed and was something we should have realized. Aside from the critiques, both guest play testers stated that the game was very fun and a great project. We continued play testing with new play testers and some of us also got to experience other groups' games.
From our combined experiences, we noticed that the other games were nothing short of genius and hard work. It made us almost forget that this was a project for class and had been worked on for only a couple of weeks. We were exposed to the reality that group work can bring upon intricate and sophisticated projects success. As more play testers had played our games, we received more tips and suggestions to better the game. Nonetheless, everyone seemed to enjoy our game and we were exposed to greater excitement and a smoother game play compared to last week. We learned that we were able to improve greatly after play tests and our adjustments were successful. On our final round, we were able to experience a winner to a game and something we had not seen in other play tests; the rounds were going by at a faster rate which led to a winner before time was called. We were able to experience the various game play elements in this way. A suggestion was brought up to keep track of how many one times one lied by asking a question on the question card and then giving it to the player they ask in order to verify the amount of times they lied in the end of the round. This was a great suggestion that we implemented into succeeding rounds. As a summary, we had learned that our game was a success but also had its flaws. These flaws were nothing game-ruining, so further adjustment could have produced an even more smoother game.