The Game Evaluation Matrix I wrote was intended for any type of board game. The system I used meant each criterion could have a maximum of 4 points and a minimum of 1 point. This system is similar to the Game review sites you can find on the internet such as Gamespot, but on a smaller scale. I choose to make it on a smaller scale because there is less variation in how well the quality of board games is compared to video games.
The overall score has a maximum of 4; this is because once all the criteria have been filled out, you add up the scores then divide by 13. This gives an average score based on the criteria filled out. I choose to average out the scores because it shows how good the board game is as a whole, because some games could be of the highest quality and have original game play but it may not be fun and if it is not averaged out the game could still score very highly and this would trick the potential customer of a board game to think it is better than it actually is.
What the numbers actually mean.
A game with an average score of 4 means it’s of the highest quality and has the highest fun factor which can be played on various occasions. Any game with this number is suited for its intended audience and is value for money. It also means the game is perfect in every way and does not need improving what so ever.
A game with an average score of 3/3.5 means it’s near perfect but has a few flaws in its design. Most of the better designed games will probably fall into this category. A game with this score is most likely intended for its suited audience.
Games with an average score of 2/2.5 will have a few serious flaws in its design and the fun factor may not be present in the game play. The game may only be able to be played a few times and then it becomes uninteresting and boring. It may also mean some elements of the game play & designs aren’t suited for the intended audience. The instructions on how to play the game may be hard to understand which makes the game even less enjoyable to play.
A game with an average score of 1/1.5 is of the lowest quality and may be unplayable or boring. It will lose its fun factor fast and is most probably not suited towards its intended audience. These games are probably more of a novelty than anything else.
Why did I use the chosen criteria?
There are 13 criteria which are given a score one to five. These 13 criteria allow different aspects of the board game to be given a score and allow the potential customer to see various aspects of the game without actually playing it.
The first criteria I used were the visuals designed for the target audience. I chose to use this because a board game not designed with its audience in mind may make the game unsuitable for the audience. For example if it was a Kids game but was designed for Adults, it may make the children bored easily or may be inappropriate. If the game scores lowly in these criteria, normally means the game will lose its appeal quickly.
The second criteria I used was did the instructions suit the target audience. I chose this one because I believe one of the main elements of a game is the instructions given. If the board game was intended for kids but had really complex instructions, the game would be unplayable as they wouldn’t understand how the game play works.
The third criteria I used was how original the game play is. This is probably the most important criteria because it’s what makes the game exciting and fresh. If it scores anything above 3, it normally means the game is fun and fresh to play.
The next criteria I used was, is it re-playable. If it scores lowly in this category it normally means the game becomes boring very quickly and repetitive. All the decent games will score above 3. It is normally re-playable if there are multiple ways to win instead of the game play being linear.
Another criterion I used was if it is fun to play. This means is enjoyable to play, did the players laugh and have a good time when playing the game. I chosen this because if a game is not fun to play then there is no point to playing it, the whole point of playing a board game is to have a good time.
The sixth criteria I used allowed the balance of the game to be measured, did one player have an advantage over another. A well designed game will make it so everybody has an equal chance of winning but it is the skill of the players which separate the winners from the losers. If it was unbalanced, the game would not be fun to play because the other players would give up, and the game would be over quickly.
The seventh criteria I used were the quality of the game pieces. A game poorly built will not last long, things may break and if the game pieces are badly designed they may not resemble what they are supposed to be.
Another criterion I included asked if there were any story elements, did it make the player feel like they belonged within the game. If it scores highly in this category it means the game was intended for its purpose. It gave a different reality for a length of time. It would allow the player to escape reality and live in a dream world. This is one of the main elements of a game, A game is designed, so the player can live in a different reality.
If the game can be won in multiple ways it allows the player to make choices and be tactical about winning. This is very awarding can adds to the fun factor. Are there different strengths and weaknesses of going one way compared to another?
Is the game multipurpose, is there different game types which can be played. If so the game is well designed because it allows the players to experience different scenarios.
If there was a steep learning curve the game may be hard to get into so before the player gets into the game, they may lose interest which makes the game badly designed. It is better to have a less steep learning curve as you can go straight into the game.
Do you get your money’s worth because there is no point buying an expensive game if the game play is short and unoriginal, the money could be spent somewhere else.
