Tuesday, October 15, 2013


We are all wrapping up what we need to do for our game. Last class we had playtesting so everyone besides one member in a group went around to play other groups’ games. One person in each group stayed to explain the rules and directions to the players. Peter from our group stayed back to answer any questions, and ask for feedback within our game.

The first game I played during playtest was my personal favorite. It was called “Espionage” and had a detective theme. It was fun matching cards and collecting pairs, even though I would get mini attacks when all of the players had to turn their cards and make pairs. The only downside was when we were not able to make pairs for a while, and when we had to think of a detective. It was tough thinking of a detective, and both my opponent player and I were stumped by it. Also, I did not like the action cards as much.

“Kitchen Chaos” was the second game I playtested. I thought the game was really creative, and can definitely see the hard work the group members put into it. It also made me really hungry because I did not have breakfast that day. However, it seemed complicated and the creators only seemed to be winning the game. In addition, the game was really based on luck, which can be a disadvantage for the players. It personally made me not want to play. Overall, the design and the presentation of the game were brilliant.

The last game I played was “Stop N Go.” The thought of the game was good but I did not enjoy it as much as the rest of the games. The game was simple but was not clear enough, making it complicated. It was nice playtesting everyone’s games because it kind of gave us an idea of are progress on our game. The major disadvantage and criticism we received for our game was the presentation because our playtesting cards were in black and white. Color always seems to be more alluring to players.

It is exams week and everyone is busy, but we are all trying to finish our tasks on time, and making our game as perfect as possible. Everyone completed their tasks on time and uploaded pictures of it on our Facebook group. I was the only one to submit mines late since I was in charge of the box and I didn’t have glue so had to borrow it from a friend. Since Peter is the only one with a car, he went to Kinko’s to laminate our cards. Nick made the final touches on the rules and created the reference cards. We were notified about the reference cards in our last class. The reference cards are to assist the players while playing because there will not be a member from each group always explaining the rules. Therefore, reference cards would assist the players when in doubt. Tomorrow is our final presentation for our group, we are hoping for the best! 

-Hardi Shah

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Play-testing the Game

It was the fourth week of working on our project and we were still unsure of the game’s ability to function. The fact that we weren’t able to develop an understandable yet involved set of rules was disheartening for our entire group. Even though every class would begin with us reaching a conclusion, towards the end we would end up doubting ourselves after Professor Parks made his commentary. I expected nothing more from this class but to leave disheartened and unsuccessful at developing a well functioning game. However, this week was different.

After making the necessary adjustments to all the flaws, it was time to test the functionality of the game. We were finally able to develop a system for scoring points that did not involve the player doing calculus, in a sense, or anything complicated. I was interested in seeing how this new system would work so I impatiently dealt the cards as required by the rules. As we played “R U Serious?” for the first time, the first round went surprisingly well. Everyone had to initially pick up a “Building card” followed by a decision of either choosing an “Action card” or two “RU Express” tokens, which was a form of currency. I liked knowing that this game didn’t completely revolve around luck and chance.

Play-testing this game allowed us to catch more flaws that we would not have noticed before. As we moved onto the third round of our game, we realized that we needed to add many more “Building cards” to the deck. We started running out of cards so we had to start all over again. I feel that my experience of play-testing the game would’ve been different had I known that there wasn’t a limitation on the amount of “Building cards”.  I ended up playing the game safely and conservatively rather than actually taking any risks. I was worried that we would run out of cards so I avoided doing anything that could potentially cause us to restart the entire game. As we played a few more rounds we continuously made adjustments to the rules. We realized that there should be a limitation on the amount of cards a player holds in their hand. We also realized that the majority of our “Action cards” consisted of negative consequences, which resulted in having everyone choosing the currency. Upon this realization we decided to add more positive “Action cards” that would actually benefit the player rather than just harm another player or potentially themselves.

Ultimately, the game was headed in a good direction. The rules were easy to comprehend and if a player was confused at first everything ended up falling into place after a few rounds. I was extremely nervous about Professor Parks visiting our table. I was secretly worried that he would catch a potential flaw that we were not able to. However, after going over the basis of the game with him, he completely understood everything and did not make any negative commentary. This uplifted all of our spirits and relieved us of all our built up stress from the previous weeks. We all left class that week as happy game developers!

-Pinal Patel

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Revisions to the Core Concept

I missed last class because of an illness. I was now disadvantaged because I was unaware of the progress our group had made with the game. My group was kind enough to fill me in on the game and explain what I had missed during the game. When Peter was explaining the game it seemed to me like there was too much complication. I could tell by the reaction on Hardi and Pinal's face also that they seemed to feel the same way.

It was after Professor Parks came by to discuss the game did it really seem like our game had too many loopholes and complications. He pointed out that the adding and subtracting on our playing cards was tedious and a bit of an over complication. We also then as a group worked to address the fact that the "Major card", the way it currently was, made no sense. At the time, the "Major card" instead of adding value to related major buildings, actually subtracted value from the player. This was originally done to aid the player in achieving the goal of wasting the most money, and hence fulfilling the title that is "R U serious?"

On realizing this problem and a few others in the game we decided to change the game a fair amount. I felt bad proposing the idea to Peter because I could tell that he felt passionately about his initial plans for the game, but if we were to move forward there would be too much complication. I did not want people to not understand our game, or my grade to be sacrificed as a result of this. We decided as a group, that it would be best to change our initiatives as the players in the game. Instead of trying to be as wasteful as possible we now aimed to be the outlier at Rutgers and aim to create as much value as possible (with buildings/major card combinations). We also decided to add in RU Express as a mock currency in the game that would help make the game player feel more in the setting of our college while also allowing them to have something tangible to keep for value.

We also spent time discussing how it would be a good idea for people to be able to pick majors as opposed to having their major randomly selected. Professor Parks said it was a good idea because it gave the players something to strive and plan for. It seemed as though the group agreed. I personally was pushing for this change because it would allow players to have a strategy or goal from the beginning of the game as opposed to forcing them to engage in random building until they were given a major card.

In conclusion the game seems to be going well. We aimed to discuss possible flaws of the game, but after being able to find none we decided to wait till play testing. We also have to decide the amount of rounds involved in each "year" of the game, but again that is an aspect best left for when we play the physical game. Finally, we decided the game would keep it's name of "R U Serious" and just have a secondary title of "Trying to find value in a university of bad decision making".

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Core Concept

(Week two of our game)

We had a slight disadvantage because Nick was sick and was not able to attend class. It was tough developing our game and trying to figure out the core notion of our game. Thus, Nick’s presence would have made a difference because an idea of one person can branch into many more ideas and we needed that especially for this class.

Initially, the main purpose of the game was to show the bad things and unnecessary buildings at Rutgers. However, it seemed as if we were just rushing and focusing on getting the game done now. We were losing the main purpose of it, which was to mock Rutgers. Therefore, we kept thinking of ways to keep the game entertaining and strategic. As we played San Juan, we developed ideas for our own game.

We have decided to have three decks of cards involving initial, action, and campus cards. For the scoring, our method was complicated at first so we decided to make it simple. The cards will have two numbers: one with the cost of the buildings and the other one will represent the value.  The numbers will be in the range of 1-5 to 1-10 so that the scoring is easier. At the conclusion of the game, the players will add up their costs and subtract the values. Whoever has the best score will win.

This week was definitely stressful because we have started forming our game. We have realized it is not as simple as it sounds to create a game. Aside from coming up with an idea of the game, we need creativity, strategy, and a way to exemplify our game in a different manner for it to stand out from the rest. Nonetheless, we are trying our best!!

~Hardi Shah

Thursday, September 12, 2013

The Game

Today was day one of our project. We all presented our games and then chose from two games. The choices were Nikki's frankenstien building game and my RU based card game. I think I did a good job selling my game to Pinal and she eventually chose my game, the Rutgers based game.

The other games involved a great deal of chance, so we avoided this. I think that my game involves some chance, but the action cards will allow players to be involved in the outcome of the game. I think that Hardi's critical thinking game involves very little chance but we did not go with that game for other reasons. I think all games involve some chance, but it is what you can do with those chances in my RU Serious game that count. We will have to keep the numbers of very powerful or weak cards low that way no players feel that they drew their way to a loss through chance.

My game is now at the mercy of the group's will. I stressed that the game should always be poking fun at Rutgers. The building cards will have to include some backhanded comments about the buildings on them and the action cards will be made to exemplify the various bad things that can happen to you while at RU. I think that with these core concepts we will make a game that is fun and easy to play, but also involves stratagey to make sure you knock down other players while they take shots at you.

Working together seemed like a pretty good give and take as we became more comfortable with each other. It is important that we can take things lightly and keep a fun work environment to avoid conflict. I hope that we can continue and all be able to take a joke while still getting the task at hand done.