When grouped and presented with the project brief, our team began with some first-hand play testing of the popular but classic board game - 'Scotland Yard'
Given that only two out of eight of the group had even heard of the game, it was a perfect basis for a non-bias assessment of the game.
Early thoughts: When setting up, we discovered that it was a team based game but in a 1 v 2+ (up to 4) way. This was pretty unconventional to how games are normally split team wise (often being either team v team or free for all). Furthermore, the game uses a 'cat and mouse' scenario - something I had not seen in another game.
The game was comprised from a few basic components:
-Character pieces (which were of a basic shape)
-'Tickets' (which were small card pieces with modes of transport written on)
- A computer cut plastic slotter that a piece of A4 paper could be slid into.
- A piece of paper (for the above slotter)
- The board (this was a large A2/A1 piece of card with a map of London printed on it)
- A cap (which had 'Mr X' sown into it)
(Image Sourced directly from http://www.puzzlemethis.com/puzzle/images/items/FXS26117.jpg)
Aside from the cap which was a gimmick of the game, this is pretty conventional of modern board games.
After around 10 minutes of setting up, the game was ready to play. This in itself was a large 'Con' as normally should a game take that amount of time to set up, the players would likely lose interest and not play. The fault was due to the disorganisation of various pieces of the game (transport cards) and also due to the complex rules, which took several minutes for a first time player to read through.
Again, as a player I would believe that this was another Con against Scotland Yard as a game. If a game has far too many rules, the instruction manual and the player who is commonly designated to read them become too integral to the game.
Soon the playing got underway and it became apparent that the player who had read the instruction manual had become the 'explainer' of the rules. During the game they would have to guide other players and often this lead to mistakes when a rule was accidently missed and had to be rectified later. This is another testament to far too complex starting gameplay.
From watching the gameplay - my understanding of the game rules were this: One player is designated as Mr X and then must escape the other players using various forms of transport (taxi, underground and bus). The detectives (the other players) must land on the same square as him to win. Mr X however must evade capture until they run out of tickets to win.
At the end of each 3rd turn Mr X must reveal his current location. Furthermore he reveals every transport he takes and gains 3 'quick escape' cards that allow him to move into any random location leaving behind his card as a clue.
The detectives have 10 taxi, 8 bus and 4 underground tickets.
From the rules we agreed the game was a Strategic Mystery game (like Cluedo) and requires the players to think hard about their next move. This is a big 'Pro' to the game as when combined with the unique nature of the scenario; it makes for enjoyable play for the group - which grew as the game went on.
However, one Con from that point is that the younger player may not enjoy such gameplay. And given that the game boasts an Age range of '10 to 99' our group decided at the end of play that this was slightly off and maybe 16/18 + would be a more realistic view of who will enjoy the game the most. This is not due to the content but rather to the levels of attention span the players must have to see the game through to its end.
What I learnt from this one playtest is that for an enjoyable game it must have:
- A quick to set up board (Maybe not many cards or cards held together by an elastic band?)
-Easy or simple to learn rules
-Rewarding gameplay system with clear winners (in this game while it was a group effort, the player that 'caught' Mr X was clearly happier than the other 'winners').
Deep and strategic games are also rewarding however it would change the age group to aim the game at (16+)
No comments:
Post a Comment