Objective
The goal of this iteration was to preserve the strongest feature of the game, which was the asymmetric generational life simulation, while reducing the amount of information players had to manage. I also needed to reconsider how storytelling was included, because requiring a question on nearly every space interrupted the game without consistently generating meaningful stories.
Process Breakdown
Clarifying the Main Mechanic
The most successful part of testing was allowing players to move through similar life stages under different generational conditions. I therefore made this comparison the centre of the game and removed or reduced mechanics that competed with it.
Simplifying the Turn Structure
I revised the sequence of actions so players would have fewer steps to remember. This was especially important for older participants, who often relied on their children to explain or repeat the rules during play.
Expanding Generation-Specific Content
Previously, each generation mainly received different statistical effects. In the revised version, spaces also contain different descriptions depending on the generation. This helps players understand the social and historical context behind the numerical difference.
Managing the Growing Content
Because each space now contained several versions of its description and effects, the amount of content grew rapidly. I created a spreadsheet to manage all of the text, values and conditions, allowing the digital portal to retrieve the correct information automatically.
Reducing Question Overload
The user tests showed that frequent questions made the board game feel overloaded and still did not produce stories as detailed as the conversation deck. I therefore reduced their frequency and concentrated discussion around Life cards and major checkpoints, where the prompt was more clearly connected to the event.
Separating Prototype Roles
This revision clarified that the board game did not need to duplicate the function of the conversation deck. The deck is stronger at producing detailed personal memories, while the board game is better at making wider social and generational conditions visible through comparison.
Key Takeaways
- Refining the game required removing content as well as adding it, because too many research ideas were competing for the player's attention.
- The strongest conversations emerged when prompts were connected to meaningful game events rather than placed on every board space.
Reflection
- This iteration taught me that a more complicated simulation is not necessarily a more meaningful one.
- The mechanics should create conditions for discussion rather than repeatedly interrupting the game to demand it.
- Giving the board game a different role from the deck made the overall toolkit clearer and less repetitive.