As shown above, the process went with an iterative approach of ‘Conceptualize, Prototype, Playtest and Evaluate’. I have done my conceptualization and prototyping, that reached a constant point, and then I had to playtest. Keep in mind, that while the concept, theme, physical cards, and game components are constant or can be worked on with the aesthetic prototype, what is important in the iterative process is the rule set.

The concept for the gameplay, that is the rule set, needed to be tested. My focus was on the gameplay experience and my ruleset had to reflect that since my theme and concept was constant. This process was the consistent process that I learned out of my research resources. Moving further in this paper, the game experience design process revolved with this approach mainly on the rule set that should encompass all my criteria.

Process Research Sources
I studied the chapters of the iterative game design process from John and Colleen’s ‘Game, Design and Play’ Book and Valve’s Playtest Principles. This process was consistent across all the resources that I read to understand game design in general.


I will be explaining here on how the rulesets were iterated and finalized through this process.

User Feedback Samples

Here are some of the feedback from a few users:

“I know this is a prototype but maybe you can make labeling more clearer since all will not know how to match the flags to countries and the wonders.”
“There are so many patterns for me. It’s a little complicated. There’s too much to understand in the first go for one try. Also, these monument names are a little long – kinda takes time to get familiar with them.”
“It’s a very long game for me. I wouldn’t play for more than an hour maybe, but this can turn around anytime. I like it though… it’s unique I guess, and understandable also.”

The core of the feedback was obtained not just by user comments or suggestions but during direct observation of the playtest themselves. This was gathered during the ‘Evaluate’ phase of the process.