Pitch Tower
Pitch Tower is a board game concept developed by Vanja Faxell, Max Groundstroem, Kristoffer Horgen, Linn Johansson, and Johan Roth. The objective of the game is to climb the tower by convincing “investors” to buy whatever product you’re pitching.
Each round, players give their best pitch, and the winner of the round is determined by a vote. The player with the highest score at the end—representing the most successful pitches—wins the game.
Playing Pitch Tower offers players a fun, competitive way to practice their elevator pitch skills, enhancing their ability to communicate ideas effectively and concisely.
This game concept was created as part of an assignment in a game design course.
Concept Developer (shared)
Designer (shared)
3D conceptualizing / Mockup
Miro board
Maxon Cinema 4D
Adobe Photoshop
Microsoft Teams
Ideation
The concept development process was fairly straightforward. We started with an open brainstorming session, encouraging team members to share and build on each other’s ideas. This session led us to focus on the idea of creating a ‘serious game’—a game with an educational or skill-building purpose rather than pure entertainment. Next, we revisited brainstorming, this time with a focus on identifying the right theme. Through a combination of brainstorming, heat mapping, and team voting, we arrived at our final concept: a serious game designed to help players improve their elevator pitch skills.
The prototype
◈ The goal of the game
Be the best at pitching your ideas to potential investors. The player with the highest score at end of the game is crowned the winner. The ultimate goal however, is to perfect your elevator pitches, by combining playing with practice.
◈ Game components
Gameboard
A high-rise with eight levels. Random company cards are placed on each floor.
Rulebook
A booklet containing the rules of the game
Cheat sheet
A note briefly describing what a good pitch should include
Company cards
Cards with company names and a brief description. E.g. "Spotify - Audio streaming service"
Buzzword cards
Trendy words, often used professionally. E.g. "Geofencing - Location-based marketing"
Precondition cards
A card that modifies the pitch by changing either the allotted time or the style of delivery. For example, cards might include “+5 seconds” or “Start with a joke.”
Digital timer
Timer, used to time each pitch
◈ How to play
- Elect a Game Leader: First, select a game leader who will keep track of scores and manage the timer.
- Set Up the Game: Randomly place business cards on each floor of the “Pitch Tower,” assigning one company per floor. Place the buzzword and condition cards face-down in two separate piles. Each player receives four random product cards.
- Round Start – Research: Each round begins with a brief research phase. During this time, players can decide which product card to pitch and think about their approach.
- Pitching Phase: It’s time to pitch! Players start with 30 seconds on the clock (though this may change based on their condition card). The player draws one condition card and one buzzword card. The player places their three cards—product, condition, and buzzword—face-up in front of them, then delivers their pitch within the allotted time.
- Evaluation: After each pitch, players reflect on what went well and what could have been improved. Note any issues such as exceeding the time limit, failing to mention the product, or missing the buzzword, each of which results in a -1 point deduction.
- Voting: Once all players have pitched, everyone votes anonymously on the pitch they thought was the best. Players cannot vote for their own pitch.
- Move to the Next Floor: Players move up one floor on the Pitch Tower and repeat steps 3-6 for each floor.
- Crowning the Winner: Once all floors are complete, the game leader tallies the final scores, adding and subtracting points based on the notes from each evaluation. The player with the highest score is crowned the winner!
User testing
◈ The process
The user tests were conducted without any input from us, the developers. The game testers were instructed to refer to the game manual only. As the test progressed we observed and took notes.
In total we were four who conducted the test, one test leader and three observers. The test subjects were also four. When the test came to an end, we continued by interview. At this point everyone in the team contributed by asking questions.
◈ Takeaways
After the test was finished, we got together and shared our notes. The notes were then divided into clusters, forming different categories, which could then be iterated on.
Overall the user test was very succecfull, the feedback we got was largely positive. Some pain points were however discovered.
◈ Iteration
Smaller problems were largely due to aestethical design limitations. Other smaller pain points which were iterated on were: Starting order, requierments for points, minimum pitch time.
The two largest changes were those affecting the point balance and feedback. The user test clearly showed that there was an imbalance in how points were gained. At the moment of testing, it was easier to get minus points, than plus points. This was corrected by giving the players points for each vote recieved, instead of only one point per won pitch round.
Perhaps the largest change of all, was that of how feedback was given. When testing we were afraid that the players would get too tactical, if they were aware of the current score. Because of that, the final score was revealed in the end, when all votes were counted. However, by doing this we missed out on maybe the most important aspect of the game, the educational part.
In our test, no one even concidered tactical voting to be an option. Winning isn’t the primary goal of the game, and this was perhaps the most important takeaway from the user test.
