ePortfolio Post 2 (Postmortem Unit 1)

Group 12

Game Summary

     My partner Anthoney and I developed a modified version of Solitaire. The modification allows players to fill the Foundation pile in either the order of kings to aces or aces to kings. The player can also stack Tableau piles in the order of kings to aces to aces to kings. We also added a new pile called the Joker pile where the player can move piles from the Tableau pile to the Joker pile as a way to assist the player with the new play style. 

Target Audience

    Our target audience was strategic players. We knew that Solitaire was directed towards strategic players already, but we wanted to make players really try to think 2 steps ahead before placing a card down. The player interaction pattern was the same as the original solitaire: single-player vs. game. This still made the player's only opposition the game itself. Our game would appeal to our audience by giving players new faucets of Solitaire. The faucets included were all geared towards strategic players. The new faucets were the Joker piles, and the order in which the Foundation piles had to be filled (King to Ace). These new faucets would present a new challenge to players and dial up the strategic planning that players had to do before committing their next move.

Example of the Joker pile. Can stack cards on top of Joker cards as long as cards follow color order. (the number doesn't matter)

Problems During Iterative Design Process

    During the iterative design process, we felt that we were so close to getting a solid game modification. However, we would get stuck when we playtested modifications that made the game either too easy or too hard. It was a difficult task to make new modifications of Solitaire while still having the player be in a sense of flow while playing. When adding one new modification to the game, we had to compensate with making another modification. The reason why was to keep a good balance of challenge and accomplishment. If we only added a modification that made the game easier, the game would be too boring. We had to add an extra challenge so the two aspects of the game would level out. This was the tricky part because with more components added, a higher the chance the game wouldn't flow together smoothly.

Task Completion

    Both of us in the group were contributing equally to make sure all the tasks for the modifications were being done. We fed off of each other's feedback and made critiques of our flaws in the iterative process. Something we could've done more of is playtested the modifications more to have a better idea of what works and what doesn't.

    Solutions we came up with were seeing if the modifications had a consistent level of accomplishment and challenge. We added or took out parts of the modification if they were making the experience of the playtest less fun or unnecessary. We made sure that every modification served a purpose.

    What I would change about my own development going forward is to focus on one modification or aspect of a game at a time. Sometimes I would feel lost because I was having multiple ideas and wanted to add them all. It became a big headache when trying to backtrack my progress because I didn't add one modification and base my next modification off of it. Also, I would playtest more to get a better understanding of what the player would experience if they had played it. It would've given me more confidence as a game designer.