Game Studies: Final Presentation and Weekly Reflections

 23/4/2025

ALTAIFI, LEEN MAAN A (0367698)

Bachelor of Design (Hons) in Creative Media, Taylor's University

Game Studies

---

Table of Content

1.  Instructions & Tasks

2. Reflections

---

1. Instructions & Tasks

Module Information Booklet

Sugar Heist Final Pitch Slides

Game Studies Group 6: Sugar Heist Final by jingxuan0209

 

Reflections

Week 1:

We were briefed on the module's information booklet and what we're expected to do throughout this semester. We formed groups and had a brainstorming session on ideas for our final project game. Initially, we thought of making it a social deduction kind of game inspired by the game Among Us; by having a glucose team (the good crew members) vs a mutated sugar (the imposter), making it a fun and educational roleplaying game. 

Week 2:

After we've discussed all our ideas, we changed our direction from social deduction game to a card game inspired by the game Exploding Kittens. We planned out the game mechanics by brainstorming different ideas and inputs from the group members, and decided we will proceed with this idea.

Week 3:

Using the idea that we planned in week 2, we decided to do a rough play test, to see how the game mechanics would work in practice, and, very expectedly, we had to make a lot of changes in the game mechanics due to problems we've faced during the game play. In the first attempt, this was our planned out game mechanics: 

• 3 random cards per player
• In the drawing deck, there are: Body State cards, Pathway cards and Action cards
• Draw 1 Body State/Pathway card from deck
• “EXERCISE” Body State match to → Glycolysis Pathway
• “SLEEPING Body State match to → Glycogenesis Pathway
• "REPAIR" Body State match to → PPP Pathway
• If you can successfully match a Body State card with a Pathway Card, set the match on the table.
• You can gain different rewards:
• Glycolysis: +2 ATP
• Glycogenesis: +1 ATP stored points that you can whip out anytime (expl: if you got “Deduct” Action Card)
• PPP: +1 ATP that is immune to any damage
• If you draw Action Cards that you can choose to use or keep for later.
• Example: Get Fat! You can’t move and lost a turn. Or Can steal from your friend’s pile (ATP or Action Cards) Or Oxidative Stress = deduct points
• The first to reach 15 ATP Points wins.
• Max 1 Action card usage allowed per person. Round ends.

We first decided to create 15 matches (body state and pathway pair, 30 cards in total), 12 action cards (6 variations, 2 of each)  to play test with. After playing based on these mechanics, we encountered several issues. The game starts with each player having random cards in their hand, and draws 1 card each round. However, upon playing, there was a big imbalance between players only drawing body state and pathway cards, and action cards. And because there were limited amount of cards, some players would end up not having matches at all. At first, we thought of making more matches cards, but that didn't solve the problem, because when players put down their correct match on the table, it is no longer used.

So to address that, we suggested that when a player has a successful match, they record the points, but return the match into the drawing deck. But upon putting that in action, keeping track of the points turned very difficult, and returning the matches to the deck after every match becomes very inconvenient gameplay. Thus, we introduced the idea of having a physical card for points instead of keeping track of it by pen and paper; whenever someone makes a match, they get to keep a card that represents the ATP points they gather. That way, stealing and sabotaging points becomes more conceivable and tangible to the eye. And instead of handing out 3 cards only and drawing from a deck, we decided to try out handing out the full deck to all players, which will be 11 cards for each hand for 4 players, (we had to add more matches and action cards to even out the number for 4 players) and the players draw 1 card from the player to their left each round, so that the cards circle around and all the players have a fair, equal chance of getting a match and earning points.

After revisions, this became our game mechanics: 

Game Setup: 

• Shuffle the full deck
• Deal all cards evenly to players
• Each player starts with their entire hand visible only to them.

1. Match Phase (Check for matches): Match a Body State Card with the correct Pathway Card:

• EXERCISE → Glycolysis
• SLEEPING → Glycogenesis
• REPAIR → PPP

If a match is successful, Lay the pair on table and Gain ATP:

• Glycolysis = +2 ATP
• Glycogenesis = +1 Stored ATP (banked for future)
• PPP = +1 Permanent ATP (immune to damage)

2. Action Phase

• If you got an Action card from the first deal, you may use immediately
• If you draw from your friend, you may use it the next round

3. Blind Steal Phase — Draw 1 random card from the hand of the player to your left. This is how you end your turn.

4. The game ends when everyone has finished the cards on their hand, and the player with the most ATP points by the end of the game wins.

Week 4:

After we have finalized our first draft of the game, it was time to show the first play test to our lecturers and get feedback. When we presented our game, we received a set of critiques:

 

- ⁠Objective of game: The objective of the game should be clearer; players should know the aim of the game. If we are basing the win of the game on who has most points, then ideally staying in the game longest (i.e. not finishing the cards in your hands) is the strategy. Therefore, action cards such as 'drawing extra card' should be revised. (first to finish is not good, stops earning ATP) 

- ⁠Confusion behind function of stored ATP: If Virus attack, and someone doesnt have Power ATP, then don’t get deducted at all? Issue because unfair

- Incorrect pathway and body state match:  "Sick in bed --> PPP", it does not follow the function of PPP, which is to repair and build.

Improvements: 

Thus, we made a group meeting to fix the issues that we have. We have clarified the objective of the game: the first person to reach 7 points and yells "glucose!" wins. Meaning, you have to play strategically to get to 7 points. If the player gets 7 points whilst not realizing, and another player notices, the player that notices can yell 'glucose' first, and steals a point from the player that has 7 points, thereby continuing the game. This makes it so all players have to keep track of each other's points, making it more challenging and fun. 

In the case that player doesn’t have Power ATP to deduct and has stored ATP, Stored ATP is downgraded into 1 Power ATP in exchange. The function of stored ATP is the energy being 'stored', so once you are faced with deduction, the stored ATP no longer becomes stored and turns into power ATP that is susceptible to being deducted. There is no difference in value, but rather how it is protected. Think of it this way, Power ATP has no protection, Stored ATP has one time protection, and PPP ATP has immunity (Full protection).

Changes in some Action Cards: Sugar Rush (Take an extra card)-> NOPE! Say No to any action cards directed at you

Oxidative Stress (Player who draws, loses 1 ATP) -> Trade Offer (Switch a card you don't want with another player's)

Week 5:

After solving the issues, we prepared our presentation for the proposal pitch. By delegating presentation roles to 4 members of our group, we tried our best to explain the rules of the games in a clear manner. We haven't received any questions about the game mechanics, but we were told that it was good work.

Week 6:

This week, we had to play test our game only amongst ourselves first. We recorded our gameplay, and encountered several issues that we have found solutions for the more we play and enhance the game mechanics.

Fig.1.0: Playtest Among Our Group

Problem 1: Too little cards. no balance between negative cards and matches. 
In our first 2 rounds of playing, we encountered the same problem twice: that players run out of cards too quickly. If there were to be simply eliminated, they would have to wait till the game ends, which is not a very playful experience, and ideally should be avoided. We also did not take much account into the number of matches (the total number of points) and the negative cards that disrupt the player's number of points. It needed to be balanced so that players can actually reach the goal number (which was set to be 7 points at the time.

Our solution: We added 6 more matches; 2 glycolysis, 2 glycogenesis, and 2 PPP. Making the total number of matches in the game 22, equaling to 31 points.

Problem 2: More matches made the probability of having 7 matches on the first more likely.

After we added more matches, and play tested to see the effects of that, players would often immediately reach 7 points on the first round. It defeated the purpose of the game. Even when we raised the goal point to 8, players reached that on the first round. 

Our solution: We added a new rule of maximum 3 matches to be made on the first round. All the following rounds have a maximum of 1 match per round, to balance things out, and make things fair for everyone. And considering we have in total 31 points for all matches and 4 players. 31/4 is 7.75, which is not a whole number. To make the game have a faster pace, we decided to make the end point first person to reach 8 points.

Strengths of the game: 
Upon playing more rounds and getting more used to the game, i noticed it does not really lose its enjoyability. It's nature makes it so it is replay-able, therefore people might be more inclined to revisit it and play it again. 

From an educational standpoint, it reinforces the main functions of the 3 glucose pathways pretty well. By the end of the game, players understand which body state necessitates which pathway, and the energy (ATP) that is resulted from each process (Glycolysis results with 2 ATP, glycogenesis is for storing, and PPP is for repair and immunity). Albeit not in full detail, it teaches the basic concepts, whilst not being too educational, and enjoyable to play.

Weaknesses of the game: 
I will try not to include bias as I did create this game, but perhaps the game might be too quick or too simple for such a complicated topic in biology. That while the game is enjoyable and has repeatability, it may not be as educational enough despite the mechanisms referencing the biological mechanisms.

Week 7: 

Fig.1.0: First round of Play Testers

First group of play-testers: They said the game was pretty enjoyable and the rules were fairly simple and quick to understand. However, they did note that they would prefer it if the matching list would be quicker to follow because of the number of matches, perhaps color coding it with the respective cards. And have the instructions somewhere visible for all players to see, possibly on their hands or an instruction paper laid on the ground.

my own note: the gameplay roughly took around 15-20 minutes, which was very quick in comparison to other groups. Not sure if this is positive, negative, or just neutral and that the nature of our game is fast-paced.

Fig.1.0: Second round of Play Testers

Second group of play-testers: They mentioned it was pretty easy to grasp the rules at the beginning, but the mechanic of drawing cards at the end of your turn made them a bit confused. They said they would prefer it if they draw the cards first and then play, which would give them the opportunity to play the card they had just drawn.

Week 9: 

In week 9, we had a group meeting and assigned tasks for everyone to work. 2 were assigned to work on the presentation slides and update our weekly game mechanics reiteration on there, another 2 worked on creating the rule brochure for our game, and my groupmate and i worked on finalizing the design of our cards, as well as renaming and rewording the card titles and subtitles.

Fig.1.0: Notes for Renaming Game Cards

Fig.1.0: Designing Cards on Illustrator

Week 10:

In week 10, we were finalizing our game assets and finished the first draft of the rule brochure, but upon feedback from our lecturer, she said the information architecture needs improvement, and to better clarify the important points by adding emphasis on them.

Fig.1.0: Rule Book Design Draft 1

Meanwhile, Gabriela and i finalized the game card designs on illustrator.

Fig.1.0: All Game Cards Design

Week 11: 

On week 11, we printed out all the game assets and cut out the game cards.

Fig.1.0: Process of Cutting Cards

Week 12: 

We improved the brochure based on the lecturer's feedback and finalized our game assets. We improved the information grouping so that users do not get confused upon reading and easily understand the game just by the written rules.

Fig.1.0: Rule Book Design Draft 2- Page 1

Fig.1.0: Rule Book Design Draft 2- Page 2

Fig.1.0: All 'Sugar Heist' Game Assets 

Week 13: 

In week 13, we had our last round of playtesting. Since the bio-med students couldn't make it, we ended up having another round of playing our classmate's games and vice versa, and we had additional players play our game and received vital feedback from them that helped us improve the game mechanics. 

Fig.1.0: Final Playtest Group 1

Fig.1.0: Final Playtest Group 2

The feedback we got from 2 sets of playtests: 

 

-try to get players to actually read the cards

- ⁠maybe need to emphasize in rule book: Draw card and immediately put out match/play action card, keep track of opponents’ points shout Glucose!

they felt it was too fast bc they missed out on some rules
 if its too fast, have a 2nd winner
 to make players read cards, make the matches have a condition (eg: make a power match and gain an extra point)
to make game last longer, add a new color star (eg: purple), each game the winner will take 1 and after 5 rounds the real champion will be based on the purple star

only Power match is always being put out - can use match combos and give functions (eg: a stored match can make a player put back a power ATP into the reserve)

- ⁠OR first round can only set DIFFERENT KINDS of matches, if dont have then cannot put