Author: bmmst136

I found King of Tokyo pretty fun to play. The art was flashy and creative, and the game play was very unique.

Players had to trade damage and play “King of the Hill” for Tokyo City to gain points and win either by score or attrition.

King of Tokyo was simple to learn. The dice rolling, health, score, and battle mechanics made sense.

I believe that the energy system was nearly useless. There were not enough opportunities to gain enough energy to buy the cards necessary for a leg-up. You are mostly focusing on healing, fighting, collecting score, or a mixture of the three. Energy felt like an unpolished mechanic beside the other systems.

What was your favorite moment or aspect of what you just played?

I enjoyed the dice-rolling aspect of the game. Determining your next action based on how lucky you are is always slightly annoying, but the re-rolling allowed players to recover from bad luck.

I wanted more energy to buy items. However, I felt too preoccupied with keeping enough health and damaging my opponents enough to force them out of the center.

I would make the energy economy less demanding, allowing players to come across energy more often. Less than 5 cards were bought during our game.

No. Even though I enjoyed the art and concept of the game. I did not believe that the mechanics were fully used or tuned to make the game enjoyable to play.

In the first act, players develop their initial strategy. A few players rushed to the center and tried to hold on to it as much as possible. Other players held back and were able to out heal the damage and collect energy. In the second act, exchanges of control over the center happened more often, and players may start using items to get ahead. In the final act, players gather enough points, either by fighting or using cards, to win.

There was little collaboration in the game. Due to the fighting mechanics, players cannot choose who they strike and the damage is divided into “In Tokyo” and “Outside of Tokyo”. The game is a free-for-all with very little ways or reasons to work together.

I believe that the overall metaphor is “King of the Hill”. Players must work against each other to hold a piece of territory for the longest time, all while preventing others from reaching it. This “there can only be one” style of game is unlike other games played in this class.

I found Citadels to be a uniquely fun game that relies on player interaction in a way unlike any other cardboard game I have played so far. The game play loop encourages hiding your strategy while constantly changing it to remain elusive from other player’s.

After players understood the game. IT became clear that, to win, offensive attacks were required to prevent others from gaining a lead. Before, players would seek the character cards that allowed them to build more, or gain more wealth. Later on in the game, players picked cards that harmed others more often.

Citadels was one of the harder games to technically understand. Learning its flow, and the intricate set of steps needed was slightly frustrating, especially because the game often failed to justify why we needed to perform these actions initially.

To me, the most frustrating aspect of the game was learning it. I believe that the game did not fully explain its mechanics well to new players. We spent a significant amount of time trying to understand what cards meant, and how the round was supposed to start. We also complained, as mentioned before, that the game did not explain the reason as to why things happened the way they did. The sense of discovery finding out what the game’s intentions were was satisfying, but it took us a while to get there.

My favorite aspect about playing the game was trying to fool other players into assassinating cards they believed I had. I drew a different character card, because I knew that I would be targeted if I picked a king. I was able to fool the assassin into targeting the wrong person, allowing me to stay ahead.

I wanted a purple character card in the original deck of characters. Since there are no purple cards in the standard character deck, and the cost of purple cards are high, it did not feel worth the effort sometimes. I would also add more cards that benefit players regardless of their character.

I would add more fun characteristics to many of the character cards. It did feel as though players only picked 4 of the 8 cards we had.

Yes. Citadels offers a unique pseudo-role based experience unlike many other games that I have played. The strategies that people develop in the endgame pit them against each other nicely.

The first act is centered around the initial setup and the first round. Players understand the basics and pick whichever card they think is best, usually a Merchant, Bishop, or King. In the mid game, players have around half the cards needed to win, so players must choose to play defensively or offensively (depending on the character cards they get). In the end game, players attack and sabotage more often in the race to the end.

There was little collaboration in our game. We did not feel as though players could successfully collaborate much beyond choosing to attack one player over another. There were many competitive aspects, however. The role-based system allows players to use their own means to succeed, and players are called in a specific order to prioritize players who take offensive actions first.

In my opinion, the highlight of this game is the dynamic turn order. Players do not proceed in any set fashion, but are called to act by the “king” of the round. The character you chose determines your sequence. This means that players can study the cards drawn and deduce who they think their opponents are, and act accordingly. I used this method to discover a hidden Warlord and steal their resources. The game rewards players who take risks and play offensively. The game’s metaphor describes the unique roles everyone plays to build an empire.

From the little that I played, Dominion looked to be a promising game with lots of ramp-up time and skill expression. There were so many ways to play the game and therefore many options different strategies to come out on top.

Dominion has a somewhat complex learning curve, due to the way that cards are drawn and played. It took our group about 10 minutes to learn, but that was because we had an experienced player teaching us the rules.

The most frustrating aspect of the game was learning the draw, reshuffle, and discard procedure. On paper it seems simple, but it is complex to an inexperienced player. I have not played a card game where your discarded cards become the cause of your actions next turn.

My favorite moment, from the little I played, was looking over the possible actions I can take. Dominion leaves a lot in the players hand, and gives them so many tools to work with. I enjoy games with lots of expression in them.

I found myself able to do anything. I am unable to describe anything I couldn’t do.

I did not play enough of the game to find flaws. I will say that the game is very overwhelming initially, making it hard to come up with a strategy. I would add more pacing to the game, either by gating certain cards or encouraging simpler strategies to build off of.

I would like to play Dominion again. I’d like to experience the game in full to see how complex the game gets at the end.

The first act would probably be the longest. The start of the game and subsequent ramp up has players understanding the game and developing their initial strategy, up until players feel confident enough to buy land or attack others. The second act would stat when players focus more laterally than vertically, either by attacking, defending, or working towards buying the most estates or amassing the most wealth. The second act flows smoothly until the final act, where new cards begin to run thin.

There are many ways to compete with opponents in Dominion, but there’s one single factor that determines victory. Many players will adopt different strategies like collecting wealth, attacking others, or playing multiple actions to maximize turns. In the end, the player with the most land cards will win the game.

I believe that the general metaphor of Dominion is empire building. You act as a king who must do whatever necessary to build their dominion. I believe that the vastness of avenues to build your kingdom is what makes Dominion stand out. Like in real life, kingdoms needed to build wealth, gain territory, and secure themselves against adversaries.

I had a lot of fun playing Splendor. It was an extremely unique game play experience that I had not previously experienced.

Players formulated strategies, multiple turns in advance, lining up a series of purchases. It was common to hear another player’s sigh as you buy the card they hoped for.

The game did not take long to learn, only about 10 minutes.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the game was the coin and card limit. I understand the limitation to encourage players to make more purchases, but I saw players hoarding a lot.

I had fun winning by a landslide through the automatic noble acquisition (if you have the cards, you automatically receive a noble).

Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t?

We made the mistake of thinking that the number representing “prestige” on the card meant that you received 2 or three gems for the price of one card. After reading the rules, we realized that it was impossible.

I would add more money to the overall “economy”. I understand that the money limit is to force players to make purchases and not hoard, having more money to play around with would make games more technically complex.

Yes, I would play Splendor again. It offered a unique competitive experience in which players are always wondering if they’re the only person vying for the card they need.

The first act starts slow, as players are amassing wealth and trying to understand the game. Usually, an initial strategy forms, buy cheap cards in order to have enough to cover a more expensive one.

The game had many competitive aspects. We all shared the same coins, so we were forced to contribute to the economy while shutting others out. I often bought cards that my opponent were looking for to force them to revise their strategy.

The metaphor is similar to monopoly, which is capitalism. Strategic investments allows you to win in the long run.

Was it fun?

After playing Pandemic, I was able to understand the vision of Forbidden Island more, and found it fun to play.

What were the player interactions?

Our group adapted pretty quickly and were able to focus on using each other’s abilities to move around the board and collect the treasures.

How long did it take to learn?

The learning curve was not long at all. That was because we had played Pandemic, which has a similar turn cycle.

What was the most frustrating moment or aspect of what you just played?

I am not sure if it was because we set the game too easy, or luck, but we had pretty much collected all the necessary treasures before the flood cards were drawn.

What was your favorite moment or aspect of what you just played?

I did like the stakes of the game. The idea that the island is flooding and sinking below us as we move made the game immersive and the stakes higher.

Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t?

I wanted to move diagonally, but we found out that only certain roles can move.

If you had a magic wand to wave, and you could change, add, or remove anything

from the experience, what would it be?

I would add more spaces, and maybe more treasures. It could be my bias coming straight from Pandemic, but the play-space felt small. It did not take many moves to reach each others or the treasures’ locations.

Is this a game you would play again? Yes _____ No ______ Why

I would like to play this game. I not only to finish it, but see how difficult the game can be.

Analyze the game using the 3 act structure.

The first act would be first setting on the island and familiarizing ourselves with our roles and capabilities. Since the spawns are random, we plan ahead and make moves to each other to swap cards. The middle act involves us moving to the treasure locations, shoring up flooded areas as we went. The final act would be attempting to reach the helicopter before the island flooded and sank (we did not get to that part yet).

What are the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game?

Much like Pandemic, Forbidden Island has a large win and lose state. The goal is to collect all treasures and make it off the island safely. If we do not escape before the island floods and sinks, we lose. We were forced to collaborate to combine our roles’ skillets. Like pandemic, we did not compete with each other much.

What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout?

I believe that Forbidden Island had a similar mechanic to Pandemic: that working together often gets things done quicker. It would be difficult to collect the cards needed for each treasure individually, so the game incentivizes you to work together.

Was it fun?

After understanding the flow of the game and its primary objective, the game was incredibly fun to play.

What were the player interactions?

Instead of working against each other, players had to strategize and plan their next moves carefully. Our group found ourselves planning, then splitting up to handle different infected regions of the world.

How long did it take to learn?

It took a good 15-20 minutes to understand the multiple actions, card interactions, and how each piece of the board affects the game.

What was the most frustrating moment or aspect of what you just played?

Even though we accidentally set ourselves on a n easier difficulty, it felt as though there was little stakes after a certain point. I never felt as though a loss was right around the corner (unless people made unwise decisions).

What was your favorite moment or aspect of what you just played?

My favorite aspect of the game play was collaborating with team members to divide and contour the board efficiently and handle the new outbreaks efficiently.

Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t?

No. The game felt balanced and intuitive after understanding the game’s mechanics and objectives. I enjoyed the experience overall.

If you had a magic wand to wave, and you could change, add, or remove anything

from the experience, what would it be?

I would add more randomness to the game, something that different versions of Pandemic already did.

Is this a game you would play again? Yes _____ No ______ Why

Yes. I found the need for collaboration to be a breath of fresh air. I have played few table-top games where players actually benefited from working together. I also found the setting, the art, and the overall stakes of the game very fun.

Analyze the game using the 3 act structure.

The first act is the initial start and outbreak. Players find out what needs to be done and usually go to the most infected cities to curb the spread. In the second act, at least one epidemic card has been drawn, and players quickly change course to deal with the new outbreaks that have occurred, all while dividing tasks between themselves. In the final act, players either collaborate successfully and cure all diseases, or fail to stop them in time.

What are the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game?

The most collaborative aspect was the role system. Differences in roles and their bonuses made players rely on each other for certain tasks. Some players could cure diseases more effectively, while others made it easy to travel to infected areas for quicker cures. Learning how we all could help each other out and executing the plan was a satisfying moment. We felt little need to compete, and it was stated in the rules that we were better of working together.

What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout?

I believe that the game’s metaphor is one of people coming together to stop threats bigger than themselves. There was no way that players could win the game alone, or by working against each other. Each player had to use each other’s locations (city cards drawn), and specialist roles (which gave bonuses) to make an effective plan before the diseases spread too much.

I believe that Munchkin is a fun game if all the pieces fall into place. It is a nice take on the turn-based card-drawing model. Unlike a game like FLUX, Munchkin encourages you to act out of turn, make informal deals, and make strategies on the flyby helping or hindering others.

There were many great interactions our group had while playing. After we overcame the learning curve, we opted to help each other if needed and build strength individually. This came crashing down when one person decided to curse another, which started pitting players against each other.

We were learning all of the time while playing. There were so many intricate conditions and terms to understand to play the game the way it was intended, which was a bit overwhelming. We had to take a while to understand how each turn worked.

The most frustrating moment was being targeted because I was getting close to winning.

My favorite part of playing was winning because I negotiated a deal to help fight a monster.

I wanted to carry more cards I believe that the hand limit, while nice in encouraging players to sell and donate, really hurt our ability to strategize for the long term.

I would tweak the rule book and simplify certain systems. It was quite the read.

I would play Munchkin again. While it is difficult to understand when starting, the liberties that Munchkin allows you to take makes the game much more dynamic.

While there was no set story in Munchkin, there was definitely an early-game, mid-game, and end-game. In the early-game, every player did not work together much, and it took a while to understand the mechanics. In the mid-game, there were more interactions between players, like team-ups and trades, with the inevitable betrayal. The end-game became a close race to the level 10, with players throwing anything they could to make another player lose their fight.

1. The most frustrating moment or aspect of playing was taking the time to understand the game before starting. Rather than simply jumping, we felt the need to understand what each set of cards did, slightly hampering the experience.
2. My favorite moment was winning a round after successfully chaining a sequence of card plays together.
3. At times, everything could be taken from you if somebody just happens upon a specific action card. Progress can be lost easily. I often wanted to get an action card that let me retain the strategy I had in mind.
4. Certain actions felt overcomplicated or underexplained. I would like to clarify the cards with a good intent and remove the rest.
5. Yes. Although the ramp-up is slow, understanding what cards you need to play and in which way you need to play them can create an interesting and worthwhile experience/payoff.