Week 6

Today, we learned a very valuable lesson in terms of collaboration and group work: failure. Although not quite total failure, we experienced a valuable lesson after our playtesting with other members from the class. As Phil stayed behind to lead the game and reveal to everyone how great of a game we thought we had created, the rest of us were off to play other games. Upon playing other games, many of us were able to experience what the other groups had created. It was an interesting experience as we were able to play a variety of different styles of game just as we had done with the games that Professor Parks brought in. We were able to experience and notice new mechanics and gameplay. Some of the games were definitely better than others, but the uniqueness of certain games was something that could not be matched. As for our own game, after we had returned to the group to discuss how our game went, disaster struck. Phil revealed that playing our game with the other classmates was a trainwreck. This had brought a variety of emotions upon us as we had had a great experience and fun time when we played the game with ourselves. The main problem to the classmates was that it was hard to understand the cards and the basic themes of the game. Many of them struggled with the understanding of certain elements of the Cold War which we though to be apparent to everyone who had taken a basic history class. As for changes, we decided to omit the "Free Reveal Card". Many of the players felt that if there was no spy, it was boring. This is because we forgot to mention that if there is no spy then one can receive points for revealing the fact that there is no spy. We decided to make a template on expected information that a spy or agent would say in order to ease the game. In addition, we would implement a rule for unlimited lies as the effect card that made everyone or certain people tell the truth would emerge as valuable. We also decided that we would create a "passport" which would look and act as a real one which contained the roles of the agents and spies and would explain the rules. In addition, the beginning or first page will tell the player to "act their role!" in order to liven up the atmosphere and make the players take the game more seriously. This was a problem that we discussed as some people lacked vigor and enthusiasm which Professor Parks solved. The passports would also allow players to take time and familiarize themselves with their respective roles in order to have smoother gameplay. We were also going to have to change certain questions which had a direct or one answer to prevent memorization of certain items, especially those that would for sure give away the spy. We would have to create more answer possibilities as well. Many people also complained about the specificity of certain aspects such as weapons which we would have to simplify. For instance, instead of specific gun models being chosen as one's favorite weapon, it would be changed to something more simple such as "flame thrower" or "machine gun". This was another aspect that Professor Parks aided in a solution. We also learned to tell the players that CIA agents can lie and that it was expected to because everyone was playing every man for themselves in order to attain the most points. This was a concept that many had not realized because we did not explain it. Finally, we realized that we needed a method of keeping track of negative points and we decided to make the counters atomic explosions as positive points were bombs. The playtesting  with other students was extremely crucial as we had realize many new things that we did not in our own playtesting. It seemed we were in our own bubble as we thought that everything was fine and dandy. However, outside playtesting revealed the faults of our game at face value. As one of the themes for collaborative work, we learned that the possibility of failure existed and it was an interesting experience and something we could learn from.