**2.1 Card game: playtesting & focus groups**

Since computer game design and development correspond to Game Theory, it is appropriate in the education process if students work with typical card or board games. Analysis and playtesting of card games are especially suitable at the beginning of such courses.

**Goal:** To achieve the best possible gaming experience in the card game. **Resources:** Card games (or board games). **Testing:** Playtesting & Focus Groups. **Methods:** Basic rules iteration, incidence matrix, SWOT analysis. **Length:** 80–90 minutes.

**Steps:**

	- Write a list of card game rules.
	- Write short feedback on the gaming experience, including both positives and negatives.
	- Write SWOT analysis.

Feedback on the card gaming experience prepares students for playtesting computer games. Since card games are usually short and fast, students are often unaware of various game aspects, subsequently missing in their feedback. That's why we decided to do a SWOT analysis, the use of which is unconventional in this case. From our experience, the SWOT analysis multiplies the effect of the entire activity.

Since the activity consists of group steps, we can also talk about training Focus Groups. Here we follow the recommendation of [2] that Focus Groups participate in creating new ideas. So, in addition to feedback, students in teams prepare iterations of game rules, coming up with new ideas.

Working with a card game guides students from Game Theory to Game Design. At the end of the activity, they compare playtesting and SWOT analysis both before and after the basic rules' iteration. It points to the quality of the iterations with which the students will develop their evaluation. An alternative could be the same activity with an existing board game.

In the next subchapters, we will present multiple outputs of this activity.

#### *2.1.1 Bang!*

**Basic rules:** Bang! is a wild-west themed card game for 4–7 players in the basic edition. The goal is to kill the enemy according to the roles drawn at the beginning of the game. The sheriff must eliminate all the bandits and the renegade with the help of his assistants. The bandits must kill the sheriff before he kills them. The renegade wants to become the new sheriff, so his goal is to be the last one alive. So, he first takes out all the bandits, sheriff's assistants, and finally, the sheriff. While the sheriff is the only role revealing his identity at the beginning, the other roles hide their identity until they die.

**Positive playtesting comment:** Can entertain multiple players. It is diverse and strategic.

**Negative playtesting comment:** The game is difficult for newcomers. It can seem long-winded.

### **SWOT analysis:**



### **Iterations:**

1.*Four players:* In the basic game, it is easy to find players' roles after a while. There is the sheriff, vice, and two bandits. The sheriff will show his role before the game starts, so it is easy to determine who are a bandits and who are not. An alternative could be to shuffle the cards by adding a renegade instead of a bandit. The renegade must be the last player left in the game, so he is expected to switch sides

*Playtesting:* Iteration made the game harder. It was not immediately clear who had what role.

2.*Three players:* When the sheriff is against two bandits, the player of the sheriff is at a significant disadvantage so that he would have multiple advantages in addition to the original game. He would have two more lives (in the base game, the sheriff always has one more life). Likewise, he would draw one more card (in the base game, it is two cards)

*Playtesting:* After the iteration, the sheriff player was no longer at a disadvantage, which positively affected the game balance.

3.*Zombie Bang!* After his death, a person becomes a zombie. He has the same traits and cards but joins the person who killed him. This way, the game will speed up considerably and become more entertaining. Even eliminated players can continue to play

*Playtesting:* The game had more dynamics after the iteration. However, there was a problem that the game was too fast.

4.*Gangs:* Players remove the original roles and divide into two or more gangs that will fight against each other. Each has its leader, hidden from others and known only to his fellow members. The goal of the gang is to kill the leaders of the other gangs. If the leader dies, the entire gang automatically loses

*Playtesting:* This iteration allowed multiple players to play the game. However, with a smaller number of players, the game became repetitive quickly. Therefore, the minimum recommended number of players for this iteration is 6.

5.*New Sheriff:* If the renegade manages to kill the sheriff before the game ends, he can become the new sheriff, and the game continues. This rule can be extended, for example, that the sheriff's assistants become new renegades, or the original sheriff becomes the new renegade

*Playtesting:* Iteration finds its use in case the game ends quickly. After the iteration is applied, the game becomes longer and continues to be dynamic, which was the goal of the iteration.

6.*Deathmatch:* An alternative could be a form of a deathmatch where all players would play against each other regardless of role, which is unnecessary in this case

*Playtesting:* The game was more dynamic after the iteration.

7.*Remove weapon restrictions:* The players remove the original condition to fire only at players within a given range

*Playtesting:* With this change, we increased the game dynamics and shortened its duration.



#### *2.1.2 Black Peter*

**Basic rules:** Game for min. 3 players, 33 cards: 32 + 1 (Black Peter). The aim is to collect pairs of identical cards. The players then draw random cards from the left player. The player who has only Black Peter left in his hand loses the game.

**Positive playtesting comment:** The game is simple for players of any age, has a fast course, and offers a balance of chances.

**Negative playtesting comment:** When playing, we revealed low variability of the gaming experience along with high repetitiveness and the impossibility of tactics. **SWOT analysis:**


#### **Iterations:**

	- Cards with a blue background have essential functions without actions.
	- Cards with a purple background will change the game direction.
	- Cards with a yellow background will allow a player to exchange one of their unwanted cards with any player's card.
	- Cards with a green background will move all cards in the player's hand in the game direction.

*Playtesting*: New rules have increased the dynamics of the game. We found a problem where their given action was not always suitable to perform after unloading a pair.

2.The rules changed, so the player does not have to use a particular action after unloading an action pair

*Playtesting*: The game became calm. However, players were afraid to use the actions.

3.*Suggested action*: Draw one card from each player. The proposed change includes a new type of action pair with a red background, whose particular action the player must perform. These actions will be deliberately designed to be disadvantageous and annoying to players

*Playtesting*: We were pleased with the new dynamics and rule change, and the game provided an entertaining gameplay experience.



### **2.2 Board game: playtesting & focus groups**

Board games are suitable as introductory activities in game design courses, like card games. This activity is similar to the card game activity. This time, students are not working with an existing game but creating a new, custom board game that they play, analyze, and iterate with each other.

**Goal:** To achieve the best gaming experience when designing a board game.

*Game Development and Testing in Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108529*

**Resources:** Paper, pencil, figures, cubes. **Testing:** Playtesting & Focus Groups. **Methods:** Game design, iteration of basic rules, incidence matrix, SWOT analysis. **Length:** 80–90 minutes.

#### **Steps:**

	- Write short feedback on the gaming experience, including both positives and negatives.
	- Write SWOT analysis.
	- Write short feedback on the gaming experience, including both positives and negatives.
	- Update a SWOT analysis.
	- If necessary, prepare a new iteration.

Working with a board game guides students from Game Theory to Games Design, like card game activities. Students practice playtesting a board game design (**Figure 4**), which is similar to playtesting a computer game design. Again, the SWOT analysis multiplies the effect of the entire activity.

Since the activity consists of group steps, we can also talk about training Focus Groups. At the same time, working with hand-made board games is similar to playtesting with paper prototypes of computer games, preparing students for the following course stages, which are focused on designing and developing computer games.

At the end of the activity, students compare playtesting and SWOT analysis both before and after the basic rules' iteration, developing a self-evaluation again.

#### **2.3 Rapid prototyping: playtesting**

This activity moves beyond Game Theory and directly relates to Game Design. After the initial processes like High Concept or Pitch, the game environment, rules, or character design comes next. Since changing these aspects of the game at a later development stage is quite expensive, it is essential to playtest the game as soon as possible.

**Goal:** To achieve the best possible gaming experience when designing a computer game.

**Figure 4.** *Board games activity in the classroom.*

*Game Development and Testing in Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108529*

**Resources:** Paper, glue, scissors, crayons, figures, Lego. **Testing:** Playtesting. **Methods:** Game design, basic rules iteration, incidence matrix, paper prototyping. **Length:** 180+ minutes.

As mentioned earlier, prototyping is part of computer games' iterative design and development. Students must realize the importance of this stage through the paper prototyping activity.

#### **Steps:**

	- Work with paper, glue, scissors, and crayons.
	- Students' creativity is welcome, e.g. they can use various figures or Legos.
	- New team members are playtesters and they play the game. They talk out loud.
	- The original team members have the role of observers. They talk as little as possible.
	- Write short feedback on the gaming experience, including both positives and negatives.

Testing is an integral part of the software life cycle. In the case of computer games, the design and development process is diverse from traditional software. We emphasize iterations, testing, and evaluation at each stage of development (RITE). A prototype is a practical means of testing, enabling one to carry out the playtesting before the game development begins. Preparing a prototype is faster than implementing an actual computer game, so (not only) the students can get to playtesting much earlier (**Figure 5**).

Feedback on the prototype's gaming experience helps students iterate their computer game's design (**Figure 6**). Reminding individual teams not to be disappointed by negative feedback is significant as one of the playtesting goals is to help game designers but not to demotivate them. Identifying the playtester's "leave" is crucial since we do not want to know that something is good or bad but also why it is good and bad. So, in addition to thinking out loud, the playtester should reveal his prejudices and adequately justify each impression.

In this way, in addition to creating paper prototypes, students practice playtesting computer games, where they have the opportunity to work as both playtesters and observers.
