Welcome to this week's behind-the-scenes post. This one's about a prototype I played recently that I loved.
Something awesome happened last night
I play other designers’ prototype games often, because games fascinate me. But I’m not interested in publishing 99.9999% of them, either because they're not good enough, or not the kinds of games Underdog publishes.
However, once in a hundred blue moons I play one that both wows me, and seems to fit Underdog.
That happened last night, and I want to talk about it, to understand my response better and gauge your reaction.
We make games about traveling, so many of our customers are travelers. Because of this, we’re interested in publishing games designed to travel with you.
However, creating an excellent one is challenging. The ergonomic requirements pose big obstacles.
One of the designers who has impressed me most lately is newcomer Marceline Leiman. I've written about her in the past because she's helping us create games. She’s responsible for some of the most electrifying moments in game design I’ve experienced in recent years.
So my ears perked when she told me she was working on a new travel game consisting of a tiny number of pieces that could come in a tiny bag or box:
That's the whole game! It would be so easy to throw in a backpack or purse! BUT HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE GOOD?
Well dip me in butter and call me popcorn because I played it last night, and then demanded to play it 9 more times. I couldn’t get enough of it.
Marceline asked me not to share rules details so I'll only discuss it at a high level: it's a 2-player, 10-minute stacking game where each player has their own piece color, and there are neutral pieces as well. You move your pieces and the neutrals around, to create clever stacking patterns, in an attempt to make it impossible for your opponent to take a turn. If you do, you win.
When I saw how small the game was, I expected it would feel too constrained, and probably also solvable. But it didn't!
I'm a pretty good abstract games player, and I lost 10 games in a row. The most delightful 10-game losing streak I’ve ever experienced.
I was surprised not only that the game didn't feel too constrained or solvable, but just how much situational variety it created with such a tiny number of pieces.
I have a game design principle I call “Use the Whole Buffalo”, meaning “make the ENTIRE state-space created by a game's components FASCINATING”. Marceline’s game is a high-level example of that principle.
Now, my reaction doesn’t guarantee Underdog will publish it. Three caveats:
- Tastes vary. Maybe others won't like it as much as I do. We have to test it with a variety of people to see.
- We have to figure out if we can market it effectively, which poses other challenges.
- Maybe it IS solvable and neither I nor Marceline has seen it yet. Must explore.
But just to have experienced something I love in a vast ocean of things I don't makes me so happy. I won’t be surprised if everyone knows who Marceline is in a few years.
Also I wonder: what’s your reaction to the concept as I’ve presented it, and to the pictures above?
Best,
Nick
