Technical Report Of The Game “Food Fight”

This report is to show the design choices and decisions made in the creation of the game “Food Fight”. A brief explanation of Eurogames and their history is made with reference to the influences of the game. The design choices and iterative process is discussed with certain playtest information includedWith recommendations on improvements, the game is considered a success.

Introduction

“Food Fight” is a Eurogame centred around engine building and resource management. The task given was to either create a Eurogame or Ameritrash game that caters for 2 to 4 players. By choosing a Eurogame, certain conventions must be followed during the inception of the game. These conventions are that the game must be made from base mechanics where a theme is secondary, and conflict is indirect. The games interface must also be easy to understand and clear. A total of 4 weeks was given to complete and present the game. In the early phases, core mechanics were thought off and worked on through many iterations. During these iterations the core mechanics would remain the same but how they were implemented would change throughout while taking the design goals into consideration.

Background and history of Euro games

To create a Eurogame, one must first understand what a Eurogame is and how this style of game works. When it comes to how a Eurogame works, these games are economic in nature (resource management). They are generally centred around the player themselves with every other player taking a secondary role in the engagement. A Eurogame relies on the simplistic mechanics to provide an experience that is engaging with a focus on engine building and indirect conflict. This style of game utilises these mechanics in such a way that the player will focus on competing for the resources which are available to inevitably create a system (or engine) to progress themselves to victory. These games tend to also have little to no randomness involved with each turn being generally being a quick decision made by the player.

In history, Eurogames are considered to originate from Germany (which is why they are also considered to be German-style board games). These games would become popular in 80s and during the early phases of the internet as they would begin reaching a wider audience. As popularity rose for these games, more and more people would be exposed to this style thus paving the way for Eurogames today.

Design goals and influences

Before the game was created, certain design goals were made which must be upheld by the final iteration of the game. These design goals were:

1. To make a game that takes 45 mins to 1 hour to play.
2. To make a game that is flexible to play with two to four players.
3. To have a clear interface.
4. To have more than one victory condition.
5. To have player interaction through trading as well as conflict on the board.
6. To incorporate the use of cards as an integral part of gameplay.
7. To make our players feel some sort of tension/conflict with their opponents while also encouraging a casual gaming experience.
8. Having a theme that wasn’t overdone but was still relatable. Taking these goals into consideration, inspiration for mechanics that could potentially be used for the game were taken from games such ‘Settlers of Catan’ and ‘Terraforming Mars’.

Designing the game

Due to the nature of the game being a Eurogame, it had to be built up on the mechanics. As a group, mechanics and ideas were decided upon which would be a good starting point for the game. Majority of these mechanics were seen as standards within a Eurogame.

The game underwent 3 major iterations. Throughout each iteration, changes were made to achieve the design goals and to provide a better player experience.

Iteration 1: Prototype

The game was going to be themed around restaurants and franchises. The goal or win condition would be to generate the most amount of revenue by the end of the game. A counter would be used to indicate the current number of rounds that have been played and to show how many were left, this would be used to ensure the pacing of the game.

Four different types of resources would be used (Workers, Ingredients, Cutlery and Revenue). These resources of Workers, Ingredients and Cutlery would be acquired throughout the game to allow the player to generate a steady stream of Revenue. Resources would be acquired by taking a player piece and moving to a designated spot on the game board. Revenue would be acquired by going to certain zones on the board and using the other resources. Another method for acquiring Revenue would be using a large amount of resources to create a permanent stall that will generate Revenue per turn (stalls can be upgraded as the game progresses). Players would have to pay to keep a stall up each turn. Playtesting of the initial game was done extensively by the game designers to fix balancing issues. Many gameplay issues were found during this initial iteration and were worked upon to create the second iteration.

Iteration 2

In this iteration, an attempt was made to sort out any issues that were raised from initial playtesting. Through playtesting this was seen to be a viable number of roundsWhen playtesting this iteration of the game, separate groups of people were used. The feedback that was given from these sessions indicated that majority of the design goals were met. For some of the design goals some tweaking had to be done to the mechanics.

Iteration 3

During the final iteration the game board and cards were refined. The aesthetics of the game were worked on with ease of life elements added for the players convenience. Changes were made to certain mechanics to fully meet the games design goals. With players who did not know the game completely, it would take much longer to play. This was changed to meet the time requirement stated in the design goals Trading tile/God tile was removed This mechanic was redundant and unnecessary Players would now begin on a resource spot and gather that resource immediately This was to help players progress in the game quickerThis would be the final iteration of the game. All playtesting done with this iteration would lead to only the refinement and balancing of mechanics. Feedback was mostly positive with slight remarks on how to make the game better but with nothing indicating that mechanics must be changed. In this iteration the design goals were met, and the game can be considered a theoretical success.

Potential improvements and suggestions

Many improvements can be made to the game. Due to the limited time constraint it is extremely difficult to create a purely Eurogame that is balanced and refined. Any improvements made will be towards the balance of the game and refining mechanics to make the Eurogame aesthetic even more visible. This can be done by further working on the game to add more phases and more levels of intricacy. Other improvements can be to the physical board and its components by making them more visually pleasing and thematic.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the game meets the stipulated conditions and criteria. The game followed the correct design methodology and matches the design goalsIt is unfortunate that final feedback is unavailable from the final presentation of the game due to circumstance. Even so the game “Food Fight” can be considered a success through feedback given by playtesters and the designers themselves with the potential improvements considered.