Category: Game Reviews

Was it fun? Absolutely, once we understood the rules.

What were the player interactions? The player interactions were timid at first, as we were figuring out rules and strategy. Once we all got a grip on what we were doing, we were all enthusiastic about starting over and going to war. That’s when the interactions became a lot more fun.

How long did it take to learn? The gameplay rules were very straightforward. The strategy took a bit longer to figure out… Perhaps 20 minutes…

What was the most frustrating moment or aspect of what you just played? No frustration at all.

What was your favorite moment or aspect of what you just played? Once we all figured out some strategy, it was time to go to war. That was fun.

Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t? Nothing comes to mind. I feel like nothing was working. That feels perfect to me.

If you had a magic wand to wave, and you could change, add, or remove anything: I wouldn’t change a thing.

Is this a game you would play again? I purchased the game on my iphone immediately after class.

Analyze the game using the 3 act structure. The opening act would be the setting up the economy based on initial decision on allocation resourses. The second act involves the majority of the fun, where each player goes on a land grab with decisions on how to proceed against adversaries. The final act involves thinning out the weak based on who played their cards right, as the strongest race toward victory conditions.

What are the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game? I found the entire game to be collaborative.

What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout? Catan is a strategic resource game where players grow their settlements by collecting, trading, and converting resources into roads, buildings, and points. The engine building mechanic of the game is what stood out to me.

1. What was the most frustrating moment or aspect of what you just played? I honestly don’t remember feeling any frustration at all during the game.
2. What was your favorite moment or aspect of what you just played? I think the concept was brilliant. The rules were very well thought out. Gameplay was fair, especially when players are able to score points for being ‘close enough’ in their guesses. The game is also visually appealing.
3. Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t? No, not off the top of my head.
4. If you had a magic wand to wave, and you could change, add, or remove anything from the experience, what would it be? I could see variations of the game with different color palettes and word clues.
5. What were the mechanics and how well did they work during your play? The mechanics were competitive and individual based. They worked well. The rules were clear and easy to follow. The pace of the game felt good.
6. Is this a game you would play again? Absolutely. I’ve already decided that I’m going to buy the game.

1. What was the most frustrating moment or aspect of what you just played? I feel like the gameplay still needs more hashing out. The rules are unclear for the overall game flow. There not enough details regarding collaboration between players, and the game seems to lack a clear strategy to progress toward the end game.
2. What was your favorite moment or aspect of what you just played? I like the general idea of traveling through the world and working with fellow travelers to get home.
3. Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t do? I guess I spent most of the playing time trying to understand the overall goal of the game. It seemed like it was a mixup between a collaborative story teller game and a competitive race game.
4. 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’ve like to have seen the game have more structure, with a definite pace and purpose
5. What were the mechanics and how well did they work during your play? The mechanics of the game seemed vague
6. Is this a game you would play again? Absolutely, in a future iteration. I really like the concept.

Was it fun? Yes it was, a bit chaotic which made it enjoyable

What were the player interactions? The whole game was based off of player interactions – each player creates the personality of the game basically by how they decide to react to the storyline the “dungeon master” creates

How long did it take to learn? Not too long, as you sort of make it up as you go

What was the most frustrating moment or aspect of what you just played? We didn’t thoroughly establish each players roles so it was a little it clunky in the first half.

What was your favorite moment or aspect of what you just played? Being able to make up a story and do whatever you want under a loose structure was enjoyable – we also had good luck with the dice roll so it made it pace well

Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t? Be able to tell the dungeon master not to do dumb things at times that didn’t really make sense

If you had a magic wand to wave, and you could change, add, or remove anything from the experience, what would it be? A little bit more direction for the story master to help them with the story theme

Is this a game you would play again? Maybe, it’s a bit chaotic so with the right crowd it could be more fun but it’s also a little mentally taxing and i prefer a little more mechanics and “gameplay” per say in my games

Analyze the game using the 3 act structure: Act 1 was determining each bears’ role in the game and making it out of “the forest”. Act 2 was healing some people from injuries and infiltrating Comic-Con and the guarded room (with lots of dice-rolling). Act 3 was then getting home where it all went downhill and our dungeon master called the whole military on us.

What are the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game? Very collaborative, everyone is working together to complete the story, almost no competitiveness

What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout? Metaphor was a family of bears and you come up with the context, ours became a mafia gang – having very little mechanics was the most unique mechanic because the players determined what you actually had to do in the game

Describe the game in 3 sentences or in the form of a haiku:

Bear gangs fighting crime
Infiltrating Comic-Con
Betrayal and chaos

1. I enjoyed Reactor 21 a lot. While the mechanics foil down to basic Blackjack, the mechanics added to the base game allow the concept of Blackjack to take an entirely new shape.
   
2. Every decision needed a debate in Reactor 21 because the game is quite unforgiving. In our test, we had to make it slightly easier to account for the bad card luck.
   
3. As someone who understood blackjack, it made understanding this game easier. However, Reactor 21 adds much more meta-game to the original blackjack formula, which took a bit to learn.
   
4. The game, like blackjack, is entirely luck based. However, Reactor 21 gives you some breathing room to make mistakes and forces you to make otherwise bad decisions to risk reward.
   
5. The stress of each decision and relief of a card that saved the game made the setting so much more real. It almost felt like we were balancing real nuclear reactors. The game does really well in balancing risk and allowing players to take risks to get a better result.
   
6. A problem we ran into was not enough chances to recover in the event of too many “dead draws”. Even if you played perfectly, you could draw a max of 3 bad cards before you lose. This made the game really tough to win. We then expanded the limit of “instability” points to allow more breathing room.
   
7. In my opinion. All the game needs is some theming and places to put points.
8. Yes. Even for non-blackjack players, I think the game stands well enough on its own to be a complex game of risk and luck that requires decisions at every turn.
   
9. In act one, players draw their first card and need to choose which reactor to add it to. In the second act, players have stabilized their reactors or have rising instability (depending on their luck). By the third act players need to make tough calls to balance their reactors.
   
10. The game is entirely collaborative. A decision can greatly change the outcome of the game in the unforeseeable future, meaning every move counts. We were excited to see cards and devastated when we drew bad ones.
    
11. The game has a nice theme about balancing nuclear reactors that are one wrong move away from destruction. I am not sure if any other game could highlight that stress as much as blackjack. The gameplay and setting blend seamlessly I’m my opinion.
    
12. Hectic. Hard. Chance.

1. The game was fun. I liked the methodical take on a pretty spontaneous game. The spinner forcing players to make decisions they might not make can put them in disadvantageous situations.
2. Players took turns taking bricks from each others’ tower to reinforce their own, but had to make sure that they did not knock over their opponent’s tower.
3. The game was quick to learn. The instructions build off of Jenga and were easy to understand.
4. Some of the wild/action cards were not specified, and their ability to be played at any time interrupted the experience a bit. Also, no rules about taking bricks from the top were stated, which allowed players to avoid the dangers of the lower parts of the tower.
5. I enjoyed the idea of the game. I believe that it was a nice blend of Twister and Jenga. I hope that, in a future version, colors and numbers can be used to further force players into tough situations.
6. I wanted more ways to interact with my opponent. For example, an action card that forces players to take from their own tower can make the conflict stronger.
7. I would add more rules or systems to the game to speed up the gameplay. I feel that the game takes a bit long to reach a point where players need to be worried about knocking their opponent’s tower down.
8. Yes. It makes a fun party game that requires a bit more focus than normal Jenga.
9. Players take their first bricks in the first act. In the second act, towers are losing their integrity as players are forced to make more dangerous decisions. Act three begins and ends a tower falls.
10. Players are directly competing with each other, but do not want to knock their opponent’s towers over (which is a nice paradox).
11. I believe the standout mechanic is the spinner and marked bricks. The spinner takes the agency of choice away from the player, forcing them to make plays they otherwise wouldn’t make. This makes the game more adaptive than normal Jenga.
12. Stressful, Adaptable, Casual

1. The concept of the game was fun. I liked the idea of a complex resource management game where players need to weigh the pros and cons of buildings, and balance costs and resources.
2. We as players did not interact much. Players were a bit isolated, silently competing with each other. What really mattered was what building somebody built at the right time.
3. The game took a while to learn. Many of the mechanics were vague and unexplained, which made it hard to interpret and learn. We had to adapt many of the rules and procedures to have a playable game.
4. The rules and instructions were very vague. The images above show revisions we made to make the game playable. Many of the mechanics of the game are not explained and leave players questioning, like money, population, goods, etc.
5. I liked the macroeconomy that the game was going for. The large amount of resources to manage makes the game enjoyably complex. With some polish, it could really become a cool strategy game.
6. I wanted to understand more.
7. I would enforce a rule to match building colors with zone colors. I would also make resource acquisition a priority, as it wasn’t mentioned much and did not even affect the buildings in the late game.
8. Yes, I would play the game when the rules are tightened and the scope is reduced.
9. Act 1: Players build their first residential zone and acquire resources. Act 2: Players make strategic investment decisions in which property to build to compete with others. Act 3: Players rely on the revenue they generate to pass the money limit and win.
10. Players are competitive in that they fight for the same resources and must be the first to reach a wealth goal.
11. The game has a similar metaphor to Monopoly but players are much less adversaries than they are competitors. Players need to find the right strategy to generate enough wealth to win. A player’s immediate actions rarely affect other players.
12. Players must plan their approach. Players must balance their resources. Players must be the first to the top.

1. Most frustrating moment: For some reason it just didn’t flow very well when i played it the first time with 2 people – a few things were just not completed in the cards that are part of the gameplay so it was a little confusing
2. Favorite moment: I really liked the theme – when we played with 3 people it went really well and flowed very nicely
3. Was there anything I wanted to do but couldn’t: The ability to fill your hand to a certain limit if you get to like 1 card or something (we tweaked it in the rules later so we could do that and it worked much better)
4. Changing anything: I would make the cards a little smaller for ease of holding
5. Improvements for next version: Emphasizing what discarding a sabotage card means, is that saying you are playing the sabotage card or can you discard it without using it if you want to – there are no (!) on the sabotage cards like the rules said there would be – does the “Kitchen Fire” sabotage card effect you or others? Can you decide who it effects? – specify in the rules that a round ends when players run out of their hand (and maybe explain some strategy so players catch on quicker) – the mandatory discard rule is a little annoying when you get to the end of a round, maybe try to rethink that mechanic
6. Describe the game in 3 words: Hangry, point-system, fun-but-needs-improvement