Category: Game Design Studio 1

Posted on

Lava checker reflection

Checkerboard lava game review

After the initial playlets of this game, I found that the general mechanics work well with little issues. The reason that it played well is because it is checkers rules with a slight twist. Since I used the standard rules of checkers as my base, it was easy to make adjustments that wouldn’t hinder or over complicate the game. My favorite aspect of the game was the possibility for the board to change (by flipping the lava tiles). Players can use this to their advantage to try to block or maneuver the opponent to their benefit. Since the initial creation I made it a rule that each player can only turn over a certain amount of tiles and disabling them. This limits the players and makes a point of incorporating strategy into the game.
Some kinks that need to be worked out include the number of pieces on the board. From the first round of playing, there were only 5 per player, but I think this makes the game start a little slower since both people have to be a little more cautious of their moves and what happens. If they had more pawns, then it would increase the initial stage of the game and allow players to get more aggressive—therefore making the game more interesting. The question is though, how many pawns should they have if more than 5. I think this ties into the size of the board. Since the board size can also be negotiated at the start of each game (allowing for a change in strategy and decreasing predictability)-the number of pawns should depend on the board size. Somehow a ratio should be worked in to this. My idea is to provide several variations in board sizes and then give the number of pawns for each potential game set. This will still allow for user creation by provide more structure as a basis to go off of.
In conclusion though, although I liked the mechanics of this game and think that it does have potential, I have decided not to pursue this idea. A major reason is because it is so heavily based off of checkers, it feels almost finished with little room for my own creativity. It’s simplicity doesn’t appeal to me and I would like to continue with a game that has a lot of room for growth and idea development. I want to challenge myself and I don’t think this game allows for much other potential.
Posted on

Carcassonne Review

Carcassonne Review

My initial opinion of this game upon playing it was daunting, after being brain fried and tired and I wasn’t prepared for a high intensity strategic game. Fortunately for myself, Carcassonne is the perfect balance where it require strategy and attention with multiple interconnected parts, but with an ease of catching on. After the first half of the semester and playing various games, I have developed an appreciation for games that are complex in parts but can be learned just by starting and seeing where it goes.
The building of the board game was my favorite component, as I’m sure it is with most other players. This dynamic took something that would have been simple and redundant and allowed the user to interact and call the shots- allowing each game to be different and cause different outcomes.
Taking a step back, I really appreciated the rule set, specifically the pictorial references to show exactly what it meant. This is an aspect I’d like to include in my game (if its complicated or hard to describe with strictly words).
Posted on

Week 10 – Game Design

Game Review

Bohnanza

Bohnanza is a colorful bean card game in which you must trade, plant, and harvest bean cards to eventually collect coins which help you win the game. Once the third season ends, or third decks runs out, the game ends and players count their coins. The most unique part of the game is that you can’t rearrange your hand and you must play the cards in their order. The game involves negotiating, trading, and managing your hand. The game was not hard to adjust to after the first round. I think it could work well as a gateway game because it has replay value, it’s fairly simple, uses luck, and has an overall fun appeal.

Posted on

Week 9 – Game Design

Game Review

Neon Highway, a space-themed broad game playthrough went fairly smooth. The game was easy and simple enough to play but I don’t feel like it had much replay value. The game was almost too simple with mechanisms similar to Candyland and Chutes and Ladders. The theme and style were appreciated but the gameplay will have to be corrected and improved to keep the players more interested. I could add more board conflict such as an alien fleet of enemies or a more variety of cards.

Posted on

My Game Reviews

As for my Lyric game, I feel like it was very successful. Everyone seemed to enjoy playing it. I need to work on things like time–how much time do they have to answer? Also adding more categories.

For my checkerboard game, I was not exactly happy with it. I think it needs a lot of improvement. I plan to start from scratch and redesign the board again. The spaces did not work with the dice and the game went too quickly. I plan to add a few different tactics to improve it.

Posted on

gnome playtest

Gnome game play test

After excitedly composing my rule set and the game pieces for my gnome game, I put it to the test in class on February 28th. Unfortunately the game play didn’t last 5 minutes without immediately seeing what corrections were needed. Overall I am pleased with the different components and how they fit together, at this point this is my biggest accomplishment. From the conception of this idea, I wasn’t sure how everything would play out and fit together, but after a lot of time on the drawing board I think I found a good overall layout of the game in how each aspect will work.
The main issue I found through this first play test was that there is not formula or ratio of cards. Therefore, it is takes a big handful of turns to even start any sort of motion on the board. It also didn’t help how unorganized and luck reliant the card aspect is. This is mostly due to the large variety of cards I created. I have learned that instead of 12 different action cards with 2 sets a piece, I should limit the actions to 5 or so. Same goes with my trouble maker cards. I also need to figure out a formula on the ratio of resource cards to the action/trouble maker cards. For instance, the cards that give the most positive feedback should require resource cards that are harder to come by.   With all of this taken into consideration I now know that I really need to think about this mechanic and how it affects the interaction of the players as well.
Some suggestions to fix these issues include:
– having a key card that shows what different combinations are needed to perform the action or trouble maker cards-this will help players dictate which cards to hold onto and which to discard
-incorporating more aspects to the house blueprint-whether it be to include hallways, or sections in the room so its not a simple 3 spaces by 3 spaces. It was also brought to my attention that the instructions are unclear as to which direction you can move in so I will need to elaborate on that portion
-do not show your cards in front of you
The last aspect that I personally need to focus on as well is the suspicion meter. I think I need to think of a different type of punishment for the suspicion meter hitting its max. Initially, you would get sent back to start and I think eventually players will grow sick of this, so maybe instead incorporate a lost turn or have everyone steal a card from you.
All in all I am excited to move forward with this game and explore the different possibilities it has, the first step is just getting the gritty details down to a t.
Posted on

Personal Card Game Review

Collegiate Card Game

My first trial of my prototyped Collegiate Card Game was definitely helpful but proved that I do not wish to move further in elaborating and fixing the game itself. My initial idea behind the game was to showcase the different characteristics of college students and the different opportunities allotted to each based on financial needs, social etc. When it came time to make the rule set I found myself focusing in on only specific elements in hopes to simplify the game initially so that I could elaborate on it after making tweaks at each stage. The end product of my rule set and prototype focused solely on the characters and gaining points towards their “needs” (each character has a different set of points needed for categories such as financial, love, social, and knowledge). You gain these points to fulfill needs by giving up time (each player has a time chips that they can trade to complete an activity which in turn gives them points). While I liked this aspect of incorporating time management I realized through playing that there wasn’t conflict at all which meant  no interaction among players. Conflict is one of the most important components in order to make a game exciting between players and for yourself. Since my game lacked this, it turned into a simple self-fulfillment game where each player simple turned cards and moved on in the game with no important decisions or involvment from the other players. An idea offered by Maddie Ferucci suggested that I could incorporate conflict by making it mandatory to choose how you spend time. For example you have to choose between one thing or another so your needs board is constantly fluctuating. There was also a suggestion to incorporate a dice to add an element of luck to the game rather than giving all the power to the cards you draw. Other factors which need to be considered more is how much time players start off with and if they should be allowed to freely gain time per turn or if they have to manage a set amount established at the beginning of the game. I also need to consider more the amount of cards drawn and discarded as this needs to have more of a purpose than just a simple choice of which card to use and discard- an aspect of punishment would definitely also change this up.
After this first trial of playing I came to the conclusion that I do not want to pursue this game idea further. While it is possible I have found that there wasn’t any interest in any aspect of the game and it resembled the game of life but in a much more boring format. While I liked the initial concept, I realized only the concept has potential. In order to make the game more interactive and enjoyable a lot of different routes would have to be checked out and experimented with and I would prefer to turn my focus to a game with more creativity and imagination.
Posted on

Bang! & Prototyping Review

Over the years, I have played many role-deduction games, such as Mafia, Werewolf, Secret Hitler, and Don’t Mess with Cthulu.  I appreciated how Bang! took this classic game format, and added extra mechanics.  In all of the other games I’ve played, death is immediate; there is never a health bar.  In many of these games, only certain roles can kill others, whereas in Bang!, everyone can kill.

If I had to place the acts, the second act would start the moment the sheriff shoots at somebody, and the third act begins the moment people begin to die or shoot the sheriff.  Given that this game could easily be re-skinned, I am guessing that the mechanics were developed before the theme.

I also had the opportunity to prototype Robert’s Love Triangle today.  The rules were solid and the theme was fun and well-executed.  However, the game became a repetitive grind after a few playthroughs.  This could probably be fixed by adding more variety to the cards or giving the player’s new actions.

Posted on

Sushi Go Review

Game Review

Sushi Go
Sushi Go is a fast paced game that is easy to catch onto. Due to the overall speed of the game, winning is a mix of luck with only a little bit of strategy. You begin the game with a set amount of cards in your hand. You play a card face down and once the other players are ready you reveal what each player chose. The next step is what keeps the game interesting; you rotate your hand to the player on your left which keeps a level of uncertainty. From here you repeat the steps. The overall objective of the game is to match like cards together (so many kinds of a set allots a certain amount of points. The person with the most points at the end of all the rounds wins. This was the first card game I have played where you were not in control of your hand for the entire time. I thought this aspect was really beneficial and upped the stress factor slightly to keep everyone interested. Not to mention that the illustrations really lent a hand to the game itself.
Posted on

1st Playtest of ‘Death Sentence’

The first playtest went surprisingly well for Death Sentence.  There were minimal holes in the rules, gameplay was easy to understand, and everyone had a good time.  Still, there are a few items I need to address:

  1. The name ‘Death Sentence’ is no longer appropriate for the game, and needs to be revised
  2. Some typos in the rules need to be fixed
  3. The theme/lore/idea/background of the game should be added to the rules
  4. A less random trading system has been suggested

If I playtest this game again after Spring Break, these items will be considered, and more official playing cards will be printed through the website makeplayingcards.com.

Posted on

Week 8 – Game Design

With the previous week (week 7) of reviewing other classmates games, this post will consist of reviews from week 8.

Gameplay

Sushi Chef Express prototype play was rather successful this week. The gameplay lasts about 25-30 minutes for four players. Some reviews suggested adding more cards or starting the game with 3 cards (instead of 5) for 3-4 players and keeping it as a starting hand of 5 cards for 2 players. Another idea would be to add attack cards that would steal or remove sushi pieces from opponents boards. Other suggestions included determining if it will be a more strategic game as appose to chance based which would involve changing certain actions on cards. The theme of the goals and roles will also be changed to match the game’s story better.

Destination Stranded! gameplay was also successful but might also need more cards added and perhaps add to the rules to remove some event cards with a certain amount of players playing.

Game Review

This week I played Sushi Go for the first time and thought it was a rather enjoyable fast-paced game. The goal is to grab the most sushi points by the end of the game. The gameplay is fast and constantly changing with cards that you play. It seems like a good gateway game that provides a fun atmosphere, replay value, and an uncomplicated ruleset. I enjoyed the graphics the most.

Posted on

Reflection week 7

The game we played this week was Sushi. To be honest, I didn’t quite understand it. Once I received a pudding card, I played it because I didn’t understand the power of it when someone else played it. But then I wish I didn’t play it because I lost points because I didn’t have the most of that type of card. There were some other cards I didn’t understand either. I also didn’t understand the point system. I came in 2nd place out of pure luck. I feel if we were to play it again I might finally understand it, but it went so fast I couldn’t catch what each card truly meant to the game. The mechanics of the game were super simple. I just wish I could have caught on to the points system and the true power of specific cards.

Posted on

Prototype Review

For the last 2 weeks I had my game “Animal Rescue” played tested. The first week I brought in a really rough prototype of the game, really looking for help on the rules. The game is made for 2-4 players and it was first played with 3. The guys helped me figure out more issues that could happen with 3 people. Like do we really need the 4th animal on the opposite side of the board or was it okay with 3.? We did become successful at playing the rough prototype, making up extra rules as we went along. This also lead me to think of extra rules and restrictions about the board setup and how characters can move. After the first play test, I took the game and all my notes home and fixed everything we talked about. The 2nd week we play tested the game with 4 people. It became a little more interesting adding an extra person. I also added more animals to make the game go longer, rules so you cannot jump over another character, and a restriction on one spot on the board. That spot is the direct middle square between the animals where the “tree” is located. No one can use that spot or jump over the tree to get to the animal on the other side, you must go around. The game was going well until some terminology struck with the chance card. I am not really good at writing down what I really mean, so I did have to ask everyone what the statement should really say. Because what something means to me, doesn’t mean to someone else. Also, the question kept up with the “do we really need 5 game pieces each”. I thought yes, because if it is a 2-player game with 8 animals, you don’t want a tie. But no, because if it is a 4-player game with 8 animals, we all really only played 2 or 3 characters at once. So maybe for a 4-player game, everyone could have 3 characters to play with 8 animals to rescue. If it’s a 3-player game there would be 3 characters and 6 animals to rescue. Then for a 2-player game you would have all 5 characters with 8 animals. Also, I originally planned for the game to have a 6-sided dice, then I dropped it to a 4-sided. This actually worked out better but I think maybe a spinner would be best. Also, for the chance card, instead of having a deck of cards to pick up from, I changed to an 8-sided dice and one card with 8 chance options. Eventually I would like to have my own characters instead of the Lego people, unless Lego wants to buy my game idea. I also still need to find a way so that the characters can carry their animal. I made the place-mat cards as a temporary thing but no one used it and when they saved their animal they just took it off the board and placed it behind their character. So, I could extend the board to have a place holder for the animals. The final big question everyone was asking was if you could place your character in someone else’s ‘home’ so that they couldn’t make it home with their animal. I wanted to say yes, because I never thought about that happening, but I wanted to say no because it’s not your characters ‘home’, it’s someone else’s. There are still so many questions and problems to solve, making this game. Eventually it could be a real game.

Posted on

Week 6 Review

Game Review

Week 6
Game Played: Bang
This past week in class we played Bang, which had a team based aspect but with an individual perspective. I would compare this game to Mafia- a game played without props. In Mafia you have an overseer who assigns each player a role secretly and then narrates the story. The whole premises of the game is not knowing which player is which character and you must narrow down guesses in order to determine who is apart of the mafia. Bang, on the other hand has  a very similar role but with more structure and opportunity. In Bang’s western theme, you have a sherif, deputies, outlaws and a renegade. During the game you must figure out who is apart of which team without getting killed and protecting your “team”. The game gets interesting when it throws in extra lives so that you do not immediately die, and that you can counter an attack through action cards. Bang was able to take a simple context but put the fait into the players hands by letting them call the shots and react accordingly based on their hand.
While there were some struggles during the game and at times seemed frustrating to not know who was on which side, I admire the different mechanics woven into the game itself. It allowed for a good blend between saving yourself but also working towards a common goal. Because of this aspect, Bang is a very interactive game between players and calls for judgements to be made.  In the end, you can progress through this game by analyzing the other players actions and expressions which is probably my favorite part.