Your prototypes are too shiny

read it originally on BGG, so ill just place the points i raised there over here too, but classier and hopefully clearer

i too agree with the points raised, a primitive prototype is great when your game is still maliable, with rules, layouts, pieces, everything still changing. but when a game starts to solidify, you will have to move on to playtesting with the public, and at that stage your game has to look at least decent.

this image shows the changes my card game went through aesthetically
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy117/laperen/FCG_card_evolution_zpsd...
the earliest on the left and latest on the right.

i almost fell into the trap in my 2nd prototype, wasted time drawing pictures for a bunch of them, in the end i went back to basic level stuff with my 3rd prototype and playtested it publically, it recieved a majority negative result with one of the playtesters calling it a "crappy game made in a day" in his session, and that was about 4 months i had worked on at the time.

the 5th prototype had a borderline but still closer to negative result. i spent a month churning some simple marker sketches depicting fighters and actions of the moves, applied them to my 5th card template prototype, tested again and there was an immediate change in opinion.

my game rules didnt change, playtesting size was about the same with some new faces, but with more solid aesthetic theming, more playtesters found the game more appealing. i will admit that the playtesting size was small and irregular, which might make for inaccurate results:

crappy prototype test with prototype 3:
2 positive votes out of 8 playtesters

no pictures test with prototype 5:
8 positive votes out of 17 playtesters

with pictures test with prototype 5:
12 positive votes out of 15 playtesters

so take from this story what you will, the public seems to always be more demanding that what you expect. when fine tuning your mechanics, what aestherics and components to use, consider the experience of playing your game as a whole after your paper playtests reach their end

I started working too much on my "look" after the rules/mechanics/play were solidified. I may have wasted too much time.

There is a happy balance to be found. From my research, it's all about the rule book. The components and board/map come second.

I both agree and not agree with you.

After having read your article, my conclusion is that the problem is not with the shiny prototype, but with you not wanting to kill your darlings. I actually think a prototype you show to anyone but yourself benefits from being well made, and by that I primarily mean two things A) handling (using cardboard instead of flimpsy paper for instance to keep people from getting frustrated or making a deck you can actually shuffle and handle well) and B) clarity (that is, no confusing stuff that makes people misunderstand things). Anything above that is a bonus.

My point is that the better looking prototype you have, the more will the players concentrate on the actual game instead of being frustrated about flimsy stuff. In short, their reviews get better because they focus on what's important.

So, if you can do this and STILL scrap large parts of your design without hesitation you get the best of two worlds.

But! And I think it's important, I do think there are some darlings that should be left alone. When you design a game you decide what kind of game this will be. I think there's a point in defending your main idea, the core game engine you aimed for. Many things can be ditched, but if you playtest a tile placing game that the testers would transform into a deckbuidling wargame with the same theme I think it's ok to say "That would not be my game anymore. Perhaps such a game deserve a project of it's own, but this is not it." That said, I think you should be ready to question ANY rule, detail or component in your creation. I have transformed quite alot in my own prototype Steamtopia, and even though I've aimed for a "finished" look I've remade tiles and cards several times to make them more logic and to enhance the gaming experience. Yes, it takes time, but I think it's worth it.

Great post, thanks for sharing.

I also appreciate laperen's examples that highlight the importance of several iterations of prototypes, rather than it being a single artifact, and the comments about designers needing to develop the ability to kill their darlings.

Another virtue of less shiny prototypes is that playtesters will be less concerned about hurting your feelings, or holding back advice that seem to change the game in far-reaching ways. A rough prototype communicates the state of your game's development, your flexibility in the design, and the amount of feedback that is expected/necessary to complete the game.

Of course, once your fundamental mechanics are proven... you'll want to create more prototypes that help you evaluate how well players are reading state, handling the pieces, and experiencing the more polished version of your game. I guess this is your one point that I take issue: that an unwillingness to change part of your game indicates that you are not working with a prototype. I think each prototype should be designed to answer questions about specific parts of your game's design. As your designs mature, there will become some sacred cows that make up the essence of what the game is about.

Again, thanks for sharing your valuable insights.

I have found that my friends have less fun when they play a crappy-looking prototype. They simply have more fun with a good-looking prototype. Having fun is the key to getting your friends to play it over and over. It also gets over-the-shoulder watchers interested, if you're playing in a venue like a game shop. Don't be afraid of scrapping integral components of your game if you suddenly have an epiphany about it.

Yes, I understand that when you put your heart and soul into making a beautiful prototype, you won't want to change anything. That hasn't been a problem for me because I realized that the aesthetics are required for the fun to be facilitated. It's required as much as good mechanical design is required. You just have to remove the emotional investment in your game components. If they're not performing well, cut them and find something better.

The trick is to find efficiency. Find an easy way to make a good-looking prototype. Make some templates in photoshop or something. Make something that's easy to print or easy to make. I have a lot of MAGIC cards in sleeves, so when I make a card game, it's easy to cover up the card with a sticky note and slip it back in the sleeve.

I've got three stages of prototype:

1. The Ugly. I make up a quick prototype using materials borrowed from other games and test it by myself to see if the mechanics work.

2. The Bad. I improve the ugly prototype and make it feel and appear decent and I use this prototype for testing parts of the game with one other player. I never test a whole game with this prototype; only phases or mechanics.

3. The Good. I make a good-looking prototype that I can do real playtests with. This is the standard. Components must be easy to replace, because it's a prototype, after all. There may be advanced stages in "the good" when 75% or 90% of the components are just the way I like them. I will set aside the old prototype and make a better-looking one that can be tested with groups of strangers.

Prototype is used to test the game, so it's a way to look if the experience provided by the artifact is the one that you want.
Prototype must be *functional* to this purpose.
If this includes a strong setting, then you will need a good-looking prototype, there's no escape.

So, if the game focus is on mechanics, like in a classical eurogame, it's ok to have a "crappy" prototype.
You're basically testing abstract concepts, mathematics, and so on.
But if you're testing a game with a strong setting, focusing on a story, or a situation that must be perceived by players to enjoy the game, you *must* help them understand what your game wants.

IMHO, a good-looking prototype helps anyway the players understanding what the game is. Ok, if you are not good with graphic design, just go for plain\vector images and don't go mad with it, but at least try to give your game the right "flavour"... and absolutely spend some time with graphics if the setting is a pivotal point of the play experience.

My 2 cents.

And I don't think anyone here is actually denying that fact. Thank you for citing, and nice site by the way. Very informative.

Sound opinions, my good man. How can we really measure justifying any of it outside of common practice. If the game gurus and educators say "this", then "this" isn't always set in stone. It is best practice, guidelines that help alleviate foreseen issues and bump up efficiency. I'm an artist, so my art plays a huge role in the presentation and function of the game.

I've read 3 really good books on game design and development as per recommended by teachers of Game Design and they all preach similar tactics, littered with their personal opinions. Ground rules are ground rules, but it's all relative.

It's similar to my field of work: designers vs. developers. Usability vs. versatility. Fashion vs. function. There's always a give or take. Coming from the designers side, my perspective is that the presentation is as important as the proposition. I want someone to gather a sense of expectation (in a way) before they develop the understanding.

We can probably go on about this forever. I'm pretty much happy the way I work and my efficiency has not suffered so I keep rolling. Artist Syndrome will always be a factor IF you are a visual creative. I see it as a blessing. If you're not artistic, don't sweat the presentation. Pencil and paper are you best friends. :P

In my limited experience prototyping, I have to say that the amount of time I had been spending hand-making crappy prototypes was not worth it when compared to the relatively cheap cost of getting nice looking, playable, and affordable prototypes made through services such as The Game Crafter. I found this to be ESPECIALLY true owning a crappy printer that blows through ink way too quickly.

Great point.

Ed, I agree that personally I like pretty prototypes for all the reasons you listed, plus one more. I think playtesting art, graphic design, and layout is just as important as game mechanics. If you make a pretty prototype you'll get feedback like "I think I would have understood it better if there was an icon over here." But that's a personal preference. The important bit is of course that you're willing to change.

When I was at Protospiel last week a player made a suggestion that was so fundamental that I would have to redo literally every printed component. He said, "Are you ok with that?" I replied "Oh I don't care about these cards. I want to make a better game." He replied, "Good answer."

If you're in the prototyping stage, have zero attachment to the prototype. Consider it a piece of tissue paper that you'll use to wipe bio hazards from your child's face and discard in the same action.

I'm in the middle of producing my first prototype using painted Scrabble tiles. The board is some foam board with a grid I printed off of an excel file. I have player aide boards as well printed off of excel. I do love excel for getting those straight lines. I couldn't draw a straight line if my life depended on it.

Even at this level it would be hard for me to trash my scrabble tiles. It all comes down to whether you are accepting of change and the extra time and effort that that change will necessitate.