Archive for ‘SWOT Analysis’

October 12, 2012

Gobblet and Rumis SWOT analysis presentation

SWOT analysis of Gobblet and Rumis – presentation

Presented by – Prashasti Baid, Kevin Kraemer, Arud Padmanabhan, Michael Schornak

Advertisements
October 12, 2012

Rumis SWOT Analysis

Rumis – SWOT Analysis

Team: Arun Padmanabhan, Kevin Kraemer, Michael Schornak, Prashasti Baid

Rumis is a board game in which each player is given a set of 3 dimensional pieces and the players have to construct different buildings based on the maps they are playing. There are specific limitations on the height of each block in the map. No two pieces proved to the player are of the same shape and each player can only place his piece adjacent to a piece of his own color. There are several interesting points about this game which we have captured below.

Strengths:

This game teaches you planning and spatial reasoning.

There are different maps available which present different sets of challenges.

No two games are similar because of the large number of possible combinations.

Weaknesses:

The learning curve required is somewhat steep compared to other board games.

A player could do an illegal move and be unaware of it if the map size is large. This is because the rules are written down on the board which gets covered by the pieces as the game progresses.

Opportunities:

Ability to design your own piece. We could ask each player to design his own piece in advance before the start of the game to add in the player’s creativity into the game.

Add a minimap to display the rules

Use magnets for the blocks so that they dont fall off the board.

Threats:

The blocks fall off beyond a certain height.

Old people or young kids with not so good dexterity cannot play this game.

In a game with more than 2 players, players could easily gang up and block another player from making further moves.

Digitization:

We could use motion control systems like Kinect to recognize gestures. We could then use these gestures to turn the pieces around, rotate the board and place them at the required position.

We could allow players to generate custom maps.

We could create an online forum where we could let players share their maps. The maps would be ordered on difficulty based on player feedback. Players could compete on the points scored by winning the map.

An illegal move would be easily prevented by the computer. The computer calculates the winning criteria. Right now the counting has to be done manually.

October 11, 2012

SWOT Analysis – Game: Gobblet

SWOT Analysis – Game: Gobblet

September 4, 2012

Tangram – SWOT Analysis

TEAM: Parth Vaishnav, Chintan Vora

The tangram is a dissection puzzle. It consists of seven flat shapes, called tans, which are put together to form shapes. The objective of the puzzle is to form a specific shape (given only an outline or silhouette) using all seven pieces, which may not overlap.

Strengths:

1. Very intelligent game.
2. Over 6500 puzzles to be solved and counting.
3. Can be played by a single player.
4. Helps stimulates mind and creativity.

Weaknesses:

1. Interaction with others limited. Mostly a single player game.
2. Can be difficult to start off. Need to plan and vitualize.
3. Not a competitive game and there is no winner or loser.

Opportunities:

1. Can be made competitive by introducing a time constraint.
2. Another way to make it competitive is to put a limit on number of times a user can place/change/move each piece.
3. Challenge friends by making a new shape.

Threats:

1. Not safe for children below 3 years. Choking hazard
2. If a piece gets lost then the set is incomplete. Its easy to lose pieces.

Digitization:

1. Can be made into a very good mobile/tablet/ desktop game
2. Initially pieces should be given to the users and users can arrange them by drag and drop or touch based UI
3. As mentioned above feature of time and limited trials can be included to make it competitive

Domains:

1. Education – Helps develop geometry skills and is a good mental exercise
2. Entertainment – The game is a very good and constructive way to pass time when alone
3. Professional – Interviewers can analyze abstract thinking and creativity by analyzing a players’ game play.

September 4, 2012

Rumis – SWOT Analysis

Team: Arun Padmanabhan, Kevin Kraemer, Michael Schornak, Prashasti Baid

Rumis is a board game in which each player is given a set of 3 dimensional pieces and the players have to construct different buildings based on the maps they are playing. There are specific limitations on the height of each block in the map. No two pieces proved to the player are of the same shape and each player can only place his piece adjacent to a piece of his own color. There are several interesting points about this game which we have captured below.

Strengths:

This game teaches you planning and spatial reasoning.

There are different maps available which present different sets of challenges.

No two games are similar because of the large number of possible combinations.

Weaknesses:

The learning curve required is somewhat steep compared to other board games.

A player could do an illegal move and be unaware of it if the map size is large. This is because the rules are written down on the board which gets covered by the pieces as the game progresses.

Opportunities:

Ability to design your own piece. We could ask each player to design his own piece in advance before the start of the game to add in the player’s creativity into the game.

Add a minimap to display the rules

Use magnets for the blocks so that they dont fall off the board.

Threats:

The blocks fall off beyond a certain height.

Old people or young kids with not so good dexterity cannot play this game.

In a game with more than 2 players, players could easily gang up and block another player from making further moves.

Digitization:

We could use motion control systems like Kinect to recognize gestures. We could then use these gestures to turn the pieces around, rotate the board and place them at the required position.

We could allow players to generate custom maps.

We could create an online forum where we could let players share their maps. The maps would be ordered on difficulty based on player feedback. Players could compete on the points scored by winning the map.

An illegal move would be easily prevented by the computer. The computer calculates the winning criteria. Right now the counting has to be done manually.

September 2, 2012

Ringgz

Image

Players: Salil Apte, Yida Gong, Yu Hao, Ravi Karkar.

Each player has 12 rings (in four sizes)and 3 bases of the same color. These are placed one at a time, in turn, on one of 25 territories laid out in a five X five pattern. You may place a ring:

i) Onto or next to a territory that already has a ring in your color, or

ii) Next to a base of your color.

You also may place a base next to a territory that already has a ring in your color. Each territory can accommodate up to four rings as long as all the rings are different sizes. The winner of the territory is the player who has placed the most rings on it when the game ends, which occurs when no one can place any more rings on the board. The bases do not count in the scoring but can be placed on a territory to prevent any other player from placing a ring on it.

Strengths:

1. The game involves each player developing a strategy that balances blocking off opponents by placing bases, and at the same time accumulating enough points by placing rings.

2. Rings are of different sizes. This means that a player must keep a track of which ring sizes opponents have in their possession before making their next move. This introduces a dose of tactics into the game.

3. The game is very easy to understand, and straightforward to play.

4. The playing time is short – 5 to 10 minutes.

Weaknesses:

1. More than 4 players cannot play the game.

2. The game is too simplistic, and hence it becomes easy to develop a strategy that works in every instance of play. (Variability is limited).

3. The game is not very dynamic, and can become boring to play more than a few times (low repeatability).

Opportunities:

1. Allocating different points for different sized rings could be a very interesting addition. Currently, the different sizes of rings is only related to “what can be placed in this territory”.

2. The 5X5 board is too small. A larger board (say 8X8) would make the game a lot more fun and challenging.

3. The game could also be moved to a 3D space. This would make the game a lot harder, since players will have to track their rings at multiple levels.

Threats:

1. The game is meant for children 8+ yrs of age. It has several tiny plastics pieces, that children could easily swallow, and presents a choking hazard.

Digitization:

Digitizing the game could enhance the user experience over the physical equivalent. The game could be moved to digital form very easily with simple point-and-clicks to move pieces. Also, highlighting territories, where valid moves are possible would increase the speed of game play.

Tags:
September 2, 2012

Bohnanza

Team: Salil Apte, Parth Vaishnav

In Bohnanza, each player must plant beans in different fields, which can be harvested for coins or credits. But you only have two bean fields where you can plant beans, though you can buy a third bean field. Furthermore you have to plant the beans according to the order in which your cards are dealt to your hand, so it isn’t as simple as just choosing and planting a bean. In order to help players to achieve the maximum profit possible, players can negotiate between themselves and either trade or donate bean cards. The player with the most money at the end of the game wins.

Strengths:

1. The game is highly interactive in nature. Indeed, in each round of trades, negotiations can reach frantic levels as all players will attempt to get the best deal from trades. With a larger number of players, it becomes a challenge to remember who traded what. This is the game’s most interesting facet.

2. One is always vying to make sure the beans you plant now will have many more planted later on in the game in order to win as much money as possible while at the same time trying to not to benefit your opponents much. This game does reward long-term plans as much as short-term plans and is, therefore, a superior game because of it.

3. The bean theme of the game is essential for making the game more attractive, since more real world themes (like trading shares of stock, etc) would be less fun.

4. The amount of luck factor in the game is lower than most games. Indeed, after dealing of the cards, a player’s performance is mostly influenced by his/her strategy, and group dynamics.

5. Players will not easily grow tired of playing the game repeatedly. The games high degree of variability in each play (especially with different players), makes it appealing to repeat.

6. It has a high degree of dynamism, since most players will not be able to keep the same beans in the fields for more than a few plays. This keeps all players on their toes.

7. Due to the negotiation aspect, the nature of play depends on the nature of the players. The game can be anything from a congenial negotiation to a cutthroat competition.

Weaknesses:

1. The constraint that players can begin by planting only the first and possibly the second card limits the ability of a player to form an appropriate strategy for the current round, and for future rounds. This limits, to a certain extent, the efficacy of forming long term strategy.

2. The theme of the game play, though fun, is a bit on the abstract side, and not completely related to the skills being tested.

3. The game is very time-consuming. A game with only 3-4 players could take up to 45 minutes to finish.

4. Though, the theme makes things more interesting, the game does not look very attractive.

Opportunities:

1. In a more cutthroat variant of the game, hostile takeovers during negotiation rounds could be introduced. This would entail “forcing” other players to trade card based on some condition such as possession of x # of coins, etc.

2. A wild card which allows players to plant beans in any order, instead of the first and second card would be a very interesting addition.

3. A wild card that allowed players to draw more than three cards at the end of their turns could be introduced.

Threats:

1. Cheating in the game is fairly easy. During the trading round, when everyone’s attention is on negotiations, a player could easily alter the order of his/her cards.

2. If the same small group of players plays the game repeatedly, things become very predictable, and the games variability, and volatility is lost.

Digitization:

Due to the highly non-linear and volatile nature of the trading phase, it would be very difficult to digitize this game. This is because, in this game, trading events are highly reactionary. An offered trade by one party, might result in another party offering a “better” deal. These aspects would be very difficult to capture digitally. In addition to this, the game clearly has a very strong human aspect which is brought out in each turn of the game. Digitizing the game would take away from this important feature.

Tags:
August 29, 2012

Katamino

Team:Siddharth Chauhan, Emily Keen, Patrick Mize, Mukul Sati

For the second class, held on the 28th of August, we played and analyzed the game Katamino

The game consists of a number of pentaminos, along with a couple of free/filler pieces, which are to be used to completely fill up a grid. In the two player variant of the game that we played, the players take turns picking up their pentamino pieces, with both of them getting a standard allocation of filler pieces. Then, when the picking is done, both players embark onto furiously trying to fit their pieces onto the board, so that they have a configuration that leaves no spaces, making judicious use of fillers so as to fill up small gaps that remain.

SWOT

Strengths:

  1. Game might finish off very fast. Still, there is the potential for the other player to finish her game before moving on. So, she learns as well (because of the speed with which the game finishes off).
  2. Level flexibility: Can be increased/decreased in difficulty depending on the players expertise.
  3. If a child is playing, she might actually use the game for a different purpose altogether and use it to instead play around, created shapes, somewhat akin to LEGO blocks. The game manual actually had such a photograph depicting shapes that could possibly be made. One can also extend the playing field (literally :)) to 3D, as we did:

     An elephant, a deer and a pentamino skyscraper 🙂

Weaknesses:

  1. Possible to memorize pieces. This means that the game will have less re playability value.

Opportunities:

  1. As noted above, the game can be made more difficult by increasing the number of blocks.
  2. Can play with handicaps. By one person having a greater number of squares to fill? Thus, can be used to bring together people of different expertise levels.
  3. Possible extensions: Can extend this to 3D.

Threats:

  1. People can memorize pieces, as stated above.
  2. Choking hazard less, but could arise with the filler pieces.

Digitization / modification:

Digitization of this would be difficult. The game is expected to be fast paced, so the moving around pieces with mice is not very intuitive. Can add pieces (perhaps come up with them randomly) – ensuring that they fit together.

 A modification for the digital world could be to increase the board size to make the game last for a longer time.

Katamino for good:

Katamino is a very “spatial orientation aware” game. It should be used for rehabilitation and for increasing directional and spatial acumen in young kids, and could be transition point for branching off into more complex puzzles.

August 29, 2012

Bendominoes Junior

Game: Bendominoes Junior

Players: Yan-Ling Chen, Dustin Harris, Chih-Pin Hsiao, Nathan Weitzner, Andrew Harbor

Strengths:

  1. Players collaborate to produce an appealing visual design
  2. Simple instructions allow players of all ages to participate
  3. Ambiguity in instructions can teach kids creative problem solving

Weaknesses:

  1. Does not allow for sophisticated strategies for advanced players
  2. Success in this game is dependent upon luck
  3. Instructions do not account for all possible player moves

Opportunities:

  1. Should be more complicated if you want to appeal to older players
  2. Example: you could have several types of birds, and kids could either make exact matches or match by category

Digital Version:

  1. Add sounds or animations. There are seven types of dominoes in this game, so they could play music notes A-G
  2. Uses pieces as a “fence” and try to trap a digital animal running around on the screen

Other Uses:

  1. For healthcare: Alzheimer’s patients could place family members’ pictures on the tiles and match them
  2. For learning: Students of foreign languages could match images with foreign words (for example, an image of a butterfly and the word mariposa)
August 28, 2012

Gobblet – SWOT Analysis

Image

Players : Arun Padmanabhan, Kevin Kraemer, Prashasti Baid

We played the game “Gobblet”, which was real fun. This is essentially a 2 player game, played on a 4*4 square, with players taking turns to make their moves. Each player is given 12 pieces. They pieces themselves are hollow and of different sizes. They are stacked into three groups of 4 pieces each. As each player puts his piece on the board, the other player can either choose to “gobble” the opponent’s piece if it is smaller than the piece he has, or put it on a separate square. The objective of the game is to get 4 pieces of the same color in a row. An important feature of the game is that each player can only play the exposed pieces first.

Strengths:

We found that the game was strong on many counts..

– This is a strategy based game and not based on luck. This makes it a good choice for those who want to play a game which tests your intelligence.

– Gobblet provides equal opportunities to both players.

– The objective of the game is simple and there are no complicated rules. Since the learning curve is short, the players start having fun right away 🙂

– Good exercise for brain as you need to plan many moves in advance and predict your opponent’s moves too.

– Each game can have only a finite number of moves. Since the games are short and intense, you can potentially play the game a number of times, with each player getting better with each game.

Weaknesses:

– The number of players is limited to two. The game could possibly be improved by adding another player with another color on the board.

– Relies on memory to some extent

– The game keeps going on till you realize you lost few moves back itself . So victory or loss not obvious at the time of the move it is actually decided (Is fun sometimes but then it is pointless play after that move)

– Although the game is strategy based, after playing the game with the same player for a couple of times, you start predicting the opponent too well. We felt that the game lost its edge there.

Opportunities:

– Can be played on a larger area with more squares ( This one was 4 X 4). Other thoughts on improving the game include having a third dimension( 4 x 4 x 4) and playing with more pieces.

– Can probably have a way to include more than two players.

– Just like Sudoku or Chess, this could be a potential game to keep old brains smart. It keeps you thinking on your feet.

– Could add a timer element to make each player move fast

– We could add a random element (say a dice throw to limit the size of next piece that a player can move) to the game to make it more interesting and keep experienced players guessing.

Threats:

– The moves could be decided in advance depending on previous experience and so could get boring

– Two players playing again and again with each other will start understanding the most likely moves of each other, making the game predictable.

Digitization:

Playing against the computer is a basic way of digitization. This could have many levels of difficulty based on player expertise

With a computer, you could potentially generate a large number of gobblet arrangements on the board and present it to a single player and ask him to predict the smallest number of moves with which he could win.

Overall, this was an awesome piece of game design and we would like to play it again when we get another chance 🙂

Tags: