Objective D

Designing Testing methods:

Expert Appraisal:

Expert 1: Khalid Nahar, an illustrator and designer, who has previously designed a parody of a Monopoly
board game, therefore has knowledge in designing them. The following questions reflect the design of the
board game, and poses questions on their efficiency in portraying the topic and general aesthetics:
Q1: Is the size of the board game adequate for the playability?
Q2: Are the size of the figurines too large for the size of the game squares? Do I have to make the pieces
smaller or the game squares larger?
Q3: Are the sizes of the cards adequate for easy distribution and playing? Should they be larger or
smaller?
Q4: Are the colors of the board and figurines too simple? Or should I add more color or detract some?
Q5: Is the design of the board satisfactory for the topic (The Scientific Revolution) or should the style of
the pictures change?
Q6: Do the pictures have to cover the entire surface of the board or can it only be one section? If not, do I
have to change the design, or can I keep it as it is?

Expert 2: The second expert is the MYP year 5 History Teacher, Joan Jawabreh, who has experience
teaching the Scientific Revolution to students, therefore the following questions will target the reliability
of the data within.
Q1: Do you think the following pictures reflect the theme well? If so how can they be improved?
Q2: Are the facts on the playing cards reliable?
Q3: Do you think that this topic with this medium of presentation will intrigue students to learn more
about History and be motivated to learn more?

Expert 3: The third expert is a professional Board Gamer, Joan Miller, someone who has had over 70
years of experience in playing board games. The questions will reflect the playability of this product:
Q1: Are the number of squares adequate for a 30-minute game time?
Q2: Should the cards be drawn out every turn or every two turns, according to the restrictions and
upgrades shown on the cards? If it’s every two turns should I change what I have currently?
Q3: Are the number of dice that I am using adequate for gameplay?
Q4: Are the figurines of appropriate size for gameplay?
Q5: Is the objective of the game logical?

Client Appraisal:
Interviewing the client and asking about the results of the product:
Q1: Does this part include the parts necessary to create a fun, gaming atmosphere?
Q2: Is this product educational enough for your needs?
Q3: Is the game long enough?
Q4: Does the game have enough diversity in its topic compared to other board games?

These questions are specific to what the client wanted in the beginning and focuses on the aspects of the
game and how the content of the game satisfies his wishes in terms of playability, education and
amusement.

Target Audience Appraisal:

The following questions target the targeted audience, the age group that this board game hopes to provide
an amusing, entertaining and educational time for.
Q1: Is this game too long?

Example 1

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Q2: Is the pathway clear?

Example 2

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Q3: Are the figurines too large?

 Example 3

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Q4: Should the board be bigger?

Example 4

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Q5: Have you learned anything about the Scientific Revolution through interacting with the playing
cards?

Example 5

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Q6: Was the game too complicated?

Example 6

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
 Q7: Could the topic have been better chosen?

Example 7

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Q8: How was the design of the board? Was it suitable to the topic?

Example 8

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Those questions target the playability of the game and whether they enjoyed it. If the needs of the client
are satisfied, then the next priority comes in mind, the amusement and satisfaction of the target audience,
through a source of amusement – a board game.

Yes No N/A

Following the rubric above, the evaluation of the Design Specifications according to the final product are
as follows:

# of Specification 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Evaluating the Design Specifications that did not pass:

Specification Weaknesses Improvements

Performance evaluation:

Characteristic Observed Description Strength Weakness

By assessing the
following:
- Comparing it with other
figurines.
The quality of the - Destructive Test to test
figurines durability.
- Comparing the physical
properties of mass &
weight with figurines of
the same size.
- Attempting to rip the
Durability of the game board in two.
board - Adding filth & dirt on the
board, then cleaning to see
if it’s cleanable.
- Deal cards quickly into
piles (as one would
normally deal playing
Playability of Cards cards) to see if there are
any fluidity issues.
- Quickly flip cards, to see
if there is any chance of
paper cuts.
- Play a test game, moving
the figurines at a fast pace
to check if the figurine
Movement of figurines on size corresponds well with
board the squares in addition to
appropriate texture of the
figurines.
- Do over 100 test roles
Reliability of dice. with the dice, ensuring that
 each roll is different and
that repetitions occur only
once in 16 or so to allow
for reliability of gaming
dice.
Foldability of the board - Try folding the board to
see if it folds neatly onto
equal quadrants.
- Destruction test (drop the
figurines to see if they
break) to ensure that they
Durability + Quality will survive conditions of
Assurance of Figurines shipment, packaging and
gameplay.
- Quality assurance: check
if the paint (acrylic &
water colors in the case of
the polystyrene) rubs from
the figurines with
application of water and
friction (rubbing).

Comparing the final product with another successful product:

To finalize the evaluation process of the final product, it should be compared to a successful product of
the same genre with similar playstyles. In this case, I will compare this product with Monopoly, a
successful board game involving money & buying of property, the winner being defined by the
bankruptcy of his/her competitors. This board game is like mine as it involved:
- Movement based. The game involves the movement of figurines on squares around a board.
- Playing Card based. In monopoly, there are “Chance” and “Mystery Box” cards that can be drawn, each
one a rule that must be followed, i.e., “move to start” or “pay $50”. In my board game this is similar,
whereas there is card drawing that will restrict (or improve) movement of the player around the board
according to accurate historical information (a parallel for the scientists who had problems publishing
their work).
- Involves figurines. Both these games use figurines to move around the board.
According to these similarities of basic rule structure, my board game can be compared to Monopoly
based on everything else including length, board size, figurine durability, aesthetics, etc.
The following table compares (and contrasts) between the two board games:

Characteristic Similarity Difference Conclusion

Durability of the
Figurines
Quality of the
figurines
 Aesthetics
Size of the Board
Number of Squares on
the board
Number of limitations
through cards
Number of
Enhancements
through cards
Number of cards
Size of figurines
Foldability of the
board
Cost of the game
Language restrictions