Last time we looked at a few statistics from Biomes 4.01 and what adjustments can be made as a result. This time, we will look at three revealing use cases that occurred in 4.01 and what strengths and weaknesses they reveal about the game.
Case 1: Captured and Injured
Firstly, one player was captured twice during the course of the game, almost back-to-back. This meant that they spent 8 of the rounds of the game unable to move or do any other productive actions. This did not impede our ability to win, but it did prevent the captured player from participating and having fun. This served to illustrate a clear pain point in the game.
It seems the mechanic of being “captured” by an enemy camp may no longer provide enough interesting counter-play. For players to be able to respond while the player is captured, but not yet injured, they would have to respond immediately to have enough actions to rescue their companion. Even then, immediate response may not be enough. However, the injury mechanic being a cool-down was certainly a positive change. It allowed injured players the ability to respond to their own injury and gave them tools to reduce their time left injured.
The risk of losing some turns is still intriguing, but it is clear that the current rules are unbalanced. In particular, the captured + injured time is too long, there is not enough viable counter-play to being captured, and there are opportunities to improve the tools players have while they are injured. These are three key areas in which the captured and injury mechanics can be improved.
Case 2: What should we do next?
The second use case occurred when we were unsure about what to do. In previous games we would encounter this problem and we would ask “how do we get more keys.” The common answer was to explore and discover in an unguided fashion, hoping to find a key or some other interesting secret to do something with. This time the answer was “find a new quest by exploring, then complete it for a key.”
This new response was much more focused. In particular, it reveals that the quests provide clarity about how to win the game. The quests have specific rules about how each one progresses, either towards success or failure. This allows players to assess each quest, decide how to allocate resources, and make tangible progress towards winning the game. These are strong attributes which the game should to continue to have and to grow in.
Case 3: End Game Goals
In the final use case we had achieved enough keys to escape and win the game, had not yet found the exit, and had a remaining quest to either work on or ignore. We asked ourselves “what should we do?” The answer was to “explore to find the exit, then escape and win the game.” This focus was great; however, there was this unfinished objective on the board which would give us nothing we needed to win. Moreover, I, as the designer and a player, wanted to complete this final quest to see all the game had to offer.
This served to underscore a divide within myself and in the game. The desire to explore and discover as the core mechanic of the game was at odds with the desire to win. This indicates to me that the end goals of the game were, at best, unbalanced and, at worst, at odds with the core mechanics and experience of the game. Thus, the end-game is a clear area for improvement in the next prototype. In particular, how can the end-game be improved to underscore and further encourage the core game play of exploration and discovery?