Clear Ace Discussion Post | richarddalmportfolio

Discussion Post

Conducting my playtests was a weird and unexpected experience in terms of actual gameplay and thoughts of the people. Originally, I thought my game was going to be mediocre with people waiting to pick at my rules and try to manipulate the game’s context. Instead I got a reaction from each person that was all the same. They all enjoyed my card game because the game is simple. Is simplicity a means of conveying information conveniently? Perhaps simplicity is a measure of respectful information that others can understand easily. I was happy to know that my work on the simple design of my game was successful.

The rules of my game are dense with text that needs thought. My game, Clear Ace, starts with a standard deck of 52 cards excluding the Jokers with a six sided die. There are only two players that can play the game. The goal is to obtain all four aces in your hand or deck. One player shuffles the deck 52 cards and then deals two cards per player. There are 48 cards left after the four cards dealt which get broken up into six piles of eight stacked cards. The piles of cards are places off to the left or right respectively of the players and each represent a number on the six sided die. If the players do not have a way of marking the piles one through six, then the players make sure each of them know from left to right are piles one through six. After the card setup is complete, the players roll the die to see which player starts the first round. The highest roll wins.

The first round begins with the player that rolled highest rolling the die again. Once the number on the die is shown, the player picks up one card from the numbered pile of cards. The player places the card into their hand and passes the die to the other player. The other player also repeats the process. Both players have three cards in their hand and the next procedure of the rounds starts.

A battle in Clear Ace happens with both players deciding to play one of their cards face down for the first round. The cards are only placed face down on the first round and duels. The cards reveal the win or loss of each player based on what value card they chose. The lowest value card is two and the highest is ace. If a player has a two in their hand, they must play the two card. The aces are only allowed to be played once until the showdown commences. The player who wins collects the cards and stacks them face down in a deck next to themselves. The round ends with the players restarting the round over.

On the new round, the player who lost during the last battle must reveal their card face up to their opponent when the battle starts. If a player plays the same value card as their opponent a duel commences. Duels happen with both players picking up one card from each of the six piles and having eight cards to choose from. If a player has a two card, they must play that card. The player who lost the first round or last round places their card face up. Then the other player who won last round selects a card of their choice. Once the winner is decided, the winner grabs the dealt cards and places them into their deck. Then the players must take the two highest cards in their hand and create a new hand while taking the other cards and adding to their deck.

If all the card piles are used and the player’s cards are used, then a showdown for the aces happens and each player must have an ace. There is only one ace that gets dealt at a time. If the showdown round ends and both players still has an ace, the loser of the last round reveals their card face up. Again, if either player has a value card of two, they must play that card. A showdown starts just like a duel except the card hand for the players gets dealt from each player’s own deck. Each player must have eight cards to play from and duel for the aces. When one player has won all the aces the game ends.

Four of my five playtests were unique because I used the social medium Skype to get my play testers. Skype worked really well because the die is a random object that needs no player involvement. I rolled the die and dealt the cards in front of the camera for my play tester’s to see and showed them the cards while holding the cards up to the camera. Each of my five playtests all ended with me winning. But I made no influence over the deck to my favor. I won fair and square each time.

My first play tester was Aaron Parish who is currently a Full Sail University online student studying Audio Production. Aaron is a casual gamer on the side and has a knack for card games. We communicated via Skype and I set up the game with my materials so he could see me and the cards. I rolled the die for Aaron and drew the cards for him. When the battles started, the first explanation for a battling was misinterpreted but quickly understood when I showed him his cards. Skype has a mirror window that allows me to see myself through the camera. I blocked the mirroring screen by placing another application screen over my Skype window.

We ended up getting to the showdown and I noticed my first problem. The last cards in your hand had to be dealt without rolling the die. I had no explanation in my rules to state what happens when we deal the last few cards. But as we followed the rules to start the rounds with the remaining cards, there was no point to roll the die because all the card piles were gone. Some explanation needs to be implemented into my rules when this condition arises.

The showdown ended with me winning in a matter of minutes with Aaron losing by dealing a value two card. I asked Aaron briefly of what his initial thought of the game was like to him. He noted that he was entertained by the mischievous and deceit he held in his hand and had to think of his choices. What scared me was him telling me the similarity to the existing card game of War my game offered. But I knew that having a relation to an existing game is valid because then the learning curve is not difficult.

Aaron said to me that he would find this game fun with others as a recreational activity. All the mechanics of the game were pretty straight forward and having another player play with him would be easy to explain. However, some of Aaron’s notations on some mechanics he noted to me were wishful thinking. Mechanics like rolling the die or the showdown seemed out of place. But Aaron knew that if a game is made the way the game is made, then his opinion only states as an opinion. Not one mechanic was a glaring problem or misunderstood to him and he had fun playing.

My second play tester was Garrett Haney. Garrett is an employee of a local barbecue business in Oklahoma and is a community college student. He plays video games actively through his spare time. We used Skype to play the game and the same procedure was played out like Aaron’s playtest. The success of this playtest was actually amazing. The entire game was an hour long because the showdown rounds were going back and forth. Garrett really enjoyed seeing me lose with the value two cards. I had three of the value two cards in my deck during the showdown. But I won by random occurrence that my eight cards contained none of the value two cards.

Garrett was completely enthusiastic with his choices during gameplay. He really wanted to find a way to play the game as smart and agile as he could. Garrett wanted to know if the game could add another deck of 52 cards so that more players could play at the end of our gameplay. While I thought on his curiosity, I asked myself what the game would be like if I happened to add another 52 cards. There would be eight aces to obtain, four players total, and twelve piles of eight cards. The idea would make sense but I haven’t explored the actual gameplay. The actual gameplay in my assumption would be chaotic with duels. I also would have to find a way to figure out ending a round with winning and losing for each player.

Garrett also told me that this game may be a friendship breaker. I thought the comment was pretty funny in terms of our gameplay. Both of us were trying hard to give each other the value two cards. Some jokes and sly gestures were given which may start tears in relationships. But the game was not meant to agitate players. In terms of the mechanics to the game were straight forward to Garrett. He was not confused at all and enjoyed his experience.

My third play tester was Minh Tran who is a licensed chef and an employee of Game Stop in the South Field Mall of Washington. Minh also is an active video gamer and spends his free time on many genres. Minh and I used the Wii U talking application to play test my game. The similar scenario with my previous game tests were used as well when using the Wii U. I set the game up and had Minh choose the card he wanted with my assisted help in choosing the card. Minh and I got to the first duel and I had all 4 aces obtained.

I was losing the game because Minh was winning each round. I did not have a deck set up yet nor did I think I had a winning chance. By complete coincidence, I had all four aces in my hand. Minh threw a fit and laughed as I showed him the cards. Although, Minh lost the game, he really enjoyed his short frame while playing. The spark of beating me and laughing at me was enjoyable to him. But when I showed Minh all the aces in my hand, he grinned.

Minh felt the opposite in terms of relationship building. He noted that the game was fair and thought out so that both players have equal chance. Garrett’s and Minh’s conflicting thoughts are both noteworthy in terms of game changes. Overall, Minh also thought the mechanics were solid and had no confusion after the rounds started. I was expecting questions and conflicting thoughts but I have not had a single problem. Just thoughts of what the game could be with some improvements of fun.

My fourth play tester was Beau Perras who is a college student in Maine studying Law Enforcement. Beau is a weight lifter and a casual gamer as well. I used Skype with Beau and played the game like the last simulations. I made a slight mistake on revealing cards too early and flipping his cards over to see what he had. I knew that if Beau was physically with me that would not happen. I also became unaware sometimes of who won.

I ultimately won with an outstanding duel. Beau and I both had two aces. The duel happened to go into five duels in one duel. Four aces, two kings, and four queens all went into one duel. I ended up winning with a jack that beat his value ten card. I was amazed at the tension rising between us. The laughter of Beau made the game really lifting when I dealt the jack. Beau really enjoyed the overall experience and found the game something he could pass to someone else.

The only problem Beau had with the game is that he wanted some theme to direct the gameplay. But in contrast to his thought, he really enjoyed the mechanic of playing the value two cards if you had either of the value two cards. A theme would need some considerable thought. But the idea is not a something that would be undermined later. For now, the game itself works and plays considerably.

The fifth play tester was Sean Brown. Sean is an auto parts professional and a local game store owner. He is also an active gamer and plays frequently. I walked into the local game thrift store to see if I could not get a play tester. Sean was willing to attempt my game under no circumstances or reasons. I explained how the game was set up and where the 48 cards with markers were going to be placed. Sean was a difficult person to read; he simply listened to my rules and gestured with his hands on actions he should take. I responded accordingly to his actions and kept speaking to convey the rules further.

During gameplay he simply began to get quicker and started making more actions in response to my rules. Grabbing the die after I rolled, planting a card according to the rules, and grabbing the cards after the battles and duels. I watched closely at his actions and nothing seemed like a mistake or an out of place action. I won again with the luck of a duel obtaining all the aces.

Sean really liked the game after I started to pack the materials. He became proactive with his thoughts saying that the game was simple and concise. He noted that the mechanic for always playing the value two cards was awkward. But I took that as an opinion since he did not delve much farther than that as a means to change the mechanic. Sean also thought the game was understandable enough and could be played with others.

I learned that my game was exhilarating and fun to play. The very fact that this game was entertaining to others really shocked me. I made a game that came out of a simple idea and worked on it for about a week. I expected the game to be confusing and need visual examples to help my players understand what to do. I did not need to do that. Every playtest I initiated was well perceived and understood.

I actually ran a sixth playtest with Nicholas Spencer just to have fun with the game. I learned that the concept of having values to my cards makes them meaningful and interesting. Nicholas said to me that most card games have some meaning to their cards. But ultimately the game I made brought value to the cards that he enjoyed. He liked the thought of how the card makes sure you have an understanding of value rather than just being a card.

There were some major problems I faced along my playtests such as the cards running out at the end of the rounds and the rolling the die for each round should be done by whom rolled the die first in the set up procedure. But mostly the game was filled with some minor problems. I am glad that my game was fun and played well. I hope to see this game possibly played by my peers and random individuals. That is mostly wishful thinking though.