GameEvaluation

###Game Evaluation As previously stated, our goal was to create an interesting game that increases energy literacy. Our game can thus be evaluated by reviewing how well the game addresses these two goals.

####Energy Literacy Currently, our game intends to teach users in two ways. First, by having card effects reflect their real-world counterparts, we can intrinsically gives the user an idea of what each named element (carbon scrubbers, solar farms, etc) does in the real world, and how "useful" it is. Secondly, we attach "factoids" in flavor text to give users explicit information about energy literacy.

To evaluate the efficacy of this process, we should first ask a group of users to fill out a "pre-game" survey. The survey should ask several questions about explicit content the cards address (for example, "what is a base load?", "How much power does a solar panel generate?"). This should address the efficacy of the "factoids" in the flavor text. Secondly, users should be asked to associate named instances (for example "coal plant", "peaker plant", "Solar Panel") with the general connotation it invokes (perhaps a Likert scale from 1-5 with 1 being "bad" and 5 being "good"). This will address the intrinsic values the game tries to impart through its' metagame. Users should then be asked to play the game a few (3-5) times. Finally, they should be asked to fill out a post-game survey, containing the same questions from the pre-game survey.

Differences in responses from the first and second surveys should show how much the game "taught" users, and what they picked up from playing the game. Ideally users should have relatively low scores the first time they answer questions about explicit content, and high scores after playing the game (indicating a high level of learning). With respect to the intrinsic/connotation questions, an ideal scenario would be one where users initially have a random or un-opinionated view of each named instance, but end up with positive connotations for green/renewable energy generation methods, and negative connotations for energy generation methods that are unsustainable or generate high levels of greenhouse gases (This indicates that the game was able to change user opinion).

After evaluation, changes should be made to the game with the following objectives:

1) Increase user education levels (Maximize the difference between pre and post game survey scores in the explicit question category)

This would most likely involve changing the flavor text.

2) Increase the correctness of user connotation with respect to named elements (Maximize the number of users who correctly identify positively with green energy sources, and negatively with dirty energy sources)

This would most likely involve changing the +/- stats on cards to reflect the desired connotative goal.

####Play Testing Keeping the game interesting and fun to play should be a primary objective, with equal or greater weight than education. If the game isn't interesting, no one will want to play it, and all the educational value in the world won't matter if no one plays the game.

Play Testing for game balance should be done in the following way:

1) Have lots of users play the game a few times, and a few users play the game lots of times.

2) Review the games and find trends amongst winners and losers. (Was there one card that all the winners played?, Was there one reoccurring situation that the losers couldn't get out of?)

3) Ask the few users who played lots of games what they thought was frustrating or unfair (things that need to be fixed) about the game. These players have played the game many times and have developed an understanding of the "metagame". They are therefore the best ones to ask about emergent game play, and situations that frequently occur in the game.

4) Ask the large number of users who played a few games how interested they would be in playing it again. This is a measure of "pickup game appeal", or how likely a user would be to want to play the game if asked spontaneously. Players who have played the game many times may become tired of it for a while, and not be interested in playing unless something changed.

####Game Play Philosophies:

1) A goal in balancing the game should be to ensure that users are never overly frustrated. It is said that confusion comes from having too many choices and frustration from having too few. Users should never feel too frustrated. It's okay if they feel like they might be falling behind, but they should always feel that by playing "smart", they can make progress. A scenario that would generate frustration would be one where a user falls hopelessly behind due to the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer". Ex: A user is never able to win the bidding on E_Gen cards due to a shortage of $, and no way to generate more $.

If it's the case that the user made a series of bad choices, and is at fault, this might not be a problem. However, if this frequently occurs (despite the user changing tactics), it might be a flaw in game mechanics, and should be addressed by giving users some kind of "get out of jail free" card. The game does provide a "Government Grant" card that gives users a quick windfall to help them out of the hole. The solution to the above problem might be increasing the number of instances of "Government Grant" in the Tactical deck.

2) Users should not consistently lose due to a shortage in one particular point type. If users consistently lose due to a shortage in one point type, it may indicate that the game takes away too many points in the given area without providing a way to replenish them. The solution would be to reduce point costs for the given type, or increase the number of instances that replenish that point supply, or increase the starting value of that point supply.

3) Users should eventually be able to make headway. A good level of balance should allow users to increase their total point value rather than simply trade points between types. For example, E_Gen cards allow users to gain x points of type A at the cost of y points of type B. Throughout the E_Gen deck, the average value of x+y should be slightly positive. That is to say, users should be able to increase their total point count rather than simply pushing points between categories.