Category: Game Reviews

Was it fun?

i had a lot of fun the mechanics and king of the hill aspect was very fun.

What were the players’ interactions?

very aggressive. getting to attack people was very fun and became the aim of how we played.

Would you play it again?

yes i would, we didn’t focus on buying cards so i would love to play a round an focused more on dealing less damage and getting more victory points.

How long did it take to learn?

it probably took about 30 minutes because i for some reason was totally missing a few things and also every on was talking while i read the rules so people didn’t remember all of the rules.

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

the competitive aspect is to try and kill the other players when you in Tokyo cuse you get more points to be in so you want to stay in. the collaborative thing i all the monsters outside of Tokyo can work together to kill the monster that sin Tokyo.

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

i love the rolling dice to do actions. it made it very straight forward. but it also makes it hard to get energy to buy cards.

bonanza

Was it fun?

yes the game was very fun.

What were the players’ interactions?

trading and auctioning off beans was really fun.

Would you play it again?

i don’t think i would play it again, the game seems like it would take forever with having to get through the pile 4 times. we didn’t even get through one pile and w played for so long.

How long did it take to learn?

it started off confusing, because the trading aspect was very hard for when you can give away cards for free. it started to go a lot smother after like 30 minutes but every one took so long on their turns.

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

it was competitive to get coins, but very collaborative with the trading to give people what they need while getting what you need.

1. Touchdown Takeover. Players must collect yardage cards to get a first downs, touchdowns, and field goals. If they are not able to “make a play” within a given amount of turns, they lose yardage cards. There are also negative yardage cards.
2. Trash Collecting. Players clean up the environment by collecting trash. Spend actions and energy to collect the trash.
3. Wall Street Monopoly. Invest money tokens in gold, start ups, and hedge funds. Collect returns on your investments when you pass go if you invested smartly. Be careful! The stock market may crash!
4. Counterfeit Collectibles. Players collect fashion items by buying them. These items can go up for auction on the market or from other players. The catch? Nobody knows until they own it whether the piece is real or fake. There will be a separate “value” card clipped to each item that may only be viewed when it’s in your hand. Player at the end with the most valuable pieces wins. This could be played with other themes. (sports memorabilia (autographs, jerseys, etc) makeup)
5. Realm Roamers. Be the most experienced traveler and collect the most locations! However, you may only travel places accessible to you from your location. Gain experience points at each location. Player at the end with the most culture points wins!

Was it fun? Yes!

What were the player interactions? Every man for himself. You could unintentionally ruin someone elses plan by buying the gem they were saving up for.

How long did it take to learn? Initially not long but it took longer to fully understand the strategy behind it.

Would you play it again? Yes! We tried to but he wouldn’t let us

Analyze the game using the 3 act structure. The beginning of the game involved us learning the rules and strategies. The middle part of the game, we were building up our stock of gems to buy more. The end of the game was reached when one person got 15 points.

What are the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game? There was little collaborative interactions in this game (no trading). It was possible to sabotage but not usually very intentionally. The game was competitive as it was every man for himself.

What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout? The game was about earning and buying gems with resources. A gam-changing mechanic was the rule that you could only have 10 gem tokens in your hand at one time. It kept gameplay going and leveled the playing field.

King of Tokyo:

Was it fun? – I do think the game was fun, though it felt short, I did enjoy playing it and winning!

What were the player interactions? – after we had figured everything out, we just started attacking each other, in-game and verbally. I did enjoy the uniqueness of the game pieces like the player card with the life and the little green power cubes though.

How long did it take to learn? – I think the rules made it more complicated than it needed to be, taking us more time to figure out the specifics than playing the game it feels.

Would you play it again? – I think so, though it’s not really my type of game, I do enjoy the competitive aspect of it

Analyze the game using the 3-act structure. – Learning the rules and establishing them in the game, then playing the game as we understood it and interacting with the board, hearts, and ability cards, the lastly winning battles in the game and eliminating players, and I WON

What is the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game? – the game is all about competition, battling over who will be the king of Tokyo, it came down to trying to save hearts, use abilities to your advantage, and then trying to win

What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout? – can you become the one and only king of Tokyo? The mechanic that stood out the most to me was the factor of how you could lose hearts, though you can gain them back with ability cards, it felt like it was a constant process to try to keep your hearts.

Bohnanza:

Was it fun? – I think the game was okay, I enjoyed the art more than playing the game

What were the player interactions? – trading cards, growing beans, and trying to keep similar cards. I think I enjoyed that aspect the most as I was with my friends, so it was easy to trade.

How long did it take to learn? – It was pretty confusing, we needed a lot of help at first but after we got it, it wasn’t too bad to play

Would you play it again? Yes, we didn’t play the whole length of the game, as we were supposed to get through the deck three times, and we only did it once.

Analyze the game using the 3-act structure. – Learning the game, and setting everything up, then beginning the step-by-step process each player is intended to do each turn, then gathering money by selling beans.

What is the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game? – We collaborated the most by trading and gifting cards but competed by trying to get the most money from selling the beans

What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout? – “to bean or not to bean” The mechanic that stood out to me the most was the factor of gathering matching cards and trying to trade cards with the other players. I felt like not a lot of other games we have played have a positive aspect to player interaction with each other while maintaining the need to individually win

1. Was it fun? Yes, although it was a little stressful waiting for your turn. You had to strategize about what cards and tokens you wanted, but when they were taken by other players, it was not fun.
2. What were the player interactions? Because everyone had a strategy for how they were going to get 15 points to win, some players would be going after the same cards or the game gem tokens. Some players would not have the choice of all of the different types of gems when it got to their turn or the card that they wanted to buy was taken. 
3. How long did it take to learn? This game wasn’t super hard to learn, but I still feel like I went through a good chunk of the game without fully understanding how to play. I didn’t realize until about halfway through the game that you could buy other cards with the cards you already bought. 
4. Would you play it again? Yes I think I would. Although I don’t think I would choose over some of the other games we’ve played in this class. 
5. Analyze the game using the 3 act structure. The first act would have been the first few rounds of play. I’m not sure if anyone really had a strategy at this point; they were just trying to get a grasp of the mechanics. The second act would have been once it started to really get competitive and it was important to you if someone stole the tokens or the card that you wanted. The third act would have been when a few of us were only a few points away from 15 points and a reserve of cards that would allow us to buy practically anything.  
6. What are the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game? This game was very competitive. Its goal was to be the first player to reach 15 points, so everyone was trying to find a way to beat everyone else to it. It was also competitive in the sense that players could reserve certain cards that they wanted to buy, so that the other players don’t have the opportunity to. 
7. What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout? I believe that the game’s metaphor is about trying to become the wealthiest player, with lots of different gems. When you collected a certain amount of each gem, Nobles would even visit you. The standout mechanic for me is being able to use the cards that you buy with the gem tokens as a resource to buy more cards. You don’t lose these cards either. 

1. Was it fun? Yes, it was. This game is super unique and I really like the mechanic of rolling the die from the pyramid to move the camels. 
2. What were the player interactions? This game involved betting on what camels that you think would win the race. If you bet first, it reduces the amount of points that other players could potentially get from betting on that same color. Players could also place spectator cards on the track to influence how the camels move. For instance, if a camel moved on the space, it would either move forward or backward, hence influencing the outcomes of the race and player’s bets. 
3. How long did it take to learn? I thought that this game was fairly simplistic to learn and it didn’t take us very long to get a hang of it. 
4. Would you play it again? Yes, I would. I don’t typically play games like this, and it was different in a good way. 
5. Analyze the game using the 3 act structure. The first act of the game involved the set up and the first leg of the race. At this point, we were beginning to learn what actions we could take on our turns and generally how the game worked. The second act of the game would involve the following legs of the race, except for the last one. This is when we started figuring out how to strategize. We started getting invested in which camel we thought was going to win. The third act of the game would have been the final leg of the race when the camels were nearing the finish line, at this point there were only a handful of camels that looked like they would potentially win and it became evident that the yellow camel would. When the yellow camel won, we counted up the final bets, received and counted our coins, and determined a winner. 
6. What are the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game? This was definitely a competitive game. Players want their camel to win and not everyone else’s camels. On each leg, you could see what each other player bet on (but not the bet for the entire race) and you could place spectator tiles accordingly. Everyone was competing for the most money at the end of the game. 
7. What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout? The game’s metaphor is about betting on racing camels in Egypt. Besides the rolling of the dice from the pyramid that I already mentioned, another standout mechanic were the crazy camels that when their die was rolled, they moved counterclockwise and could potentially carry the other camels with them.

1. Was it fun?  Yes, I felt like the game was entertaining and enjoyable! I have a soft spot for playing plant-based games, and the unique pieces and art made the experience more enjoyable! The game included an adorable comic about the story behind the characters in the game (A panda and a bamboo farmer) so the added lore to the game was a nice touch.
2. What were the players’ interactions? Like most games, diving into a game with quite a few pieces and a very specific rule and guideline book is always a little intimidating, but I’m super biased at this point and will always agree that Amber does a fantastic job of explaining the rules and assuring the game is played. Although there was one rule, we didn’t realize was incorrect until the game was a fair way through irrigation channels, we eventually agreed to play the game (still incorrect) but as we were before.  The most difficult part of the game was completing the tasks we needed to get points, but it was super fun once we got the hang of taking turns and fulfilling task cards.
3. How long did it take to learn? I would say about 10-15 minutes, Amber was super concise with the rules, so questions were asked, and as far as the basic understanding we started the game quickly, learning a bit on the way and getting the hang of it by the mid-game.
4. Would you play it again? Absolutely, this game is so so fun and cute and I was actually trying to find it over the weekend to buy it!
5. Analyze the game using the 3-act structure: Act 1: Establishing the game, the pieces, and the idea of task cards. This beginning was not as rough as some beginnings of games can be that I have experienced. It was all about placing tiles and getting tasks at this point. Act 2: At this point, we all started to focus on completing tasks, the difficult part is deciding which task to do, as some are more complicated than others. Act 3: This is where it was sort of obvious who was winning and who was behind. I had focused a lot of time on one task, which I believe was my downfall. Collin ended up winning with lots of points, as he focused on getting as many tasks as possible completed.
6. What are the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game? The game is highly competitive, with players trying to get the most points from task cards, but it is also collaborative in a way, as certain moves you can do, such as placing tiles, or choosing where to move the panda can help other complete their tasks, on purpose or not!
7. What is the game’s metaphor, and which mechanics stand out? In researching the meaning of Takenoko, which means “Bamboo child” – referring to the strong bamboo sprout that can grow 1.5 inches in an hour. Takenoko is about growing and spreading regardless of barriers that might attempt to prevent one’s growth. Throughout the gameplay, we never ran out of bamboo, even though we removed a lot of it from the board by “eating it” as the panda. I think the mechanic of never losing a feature of the game, no matter how much is going on, really brings not only the metaphor to life but also an aspect of never being done with the game.

Was it fun? I thought so but I think it might be frustrating for some.

What were the player interactions? Your choice of tile placement may either help or hurt your teammates.

How long did it take to learn? For the original game, not long. It was relatively easy to learn (under 10 minutes)

Would you play it again? Yes I would.

Analyze the game using the 3 act structure. In the beginning of the game, players chose their color, learned the game and placed their first tile. During the middle of the game, players begin to expand their empire, learn strategies, and build alliances or enemies. The game ends when the tiles run out and players count their points based on the tiles they placed throughout the game.

What are the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game? The goal of the game is competitive; however, there may be collaborative aspects depending on specific gameplay. Players may help each other out with tile placement.

What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout? The metaphor of the game is to be the ruler over as many building towns, roads, and farms as possible. A mechanic that makes the game interesting is the requirement to randomly pull then immediately play that tile; this often forces the hand of players.

Was it fun?

Yes, Tsuro was an interesting yet simple game that I enjoyed since it was a game that relied on knocking other players out of the game by making their piece go off the edge.

How long did it take to learn?

This was the quickest game for me to learn, only taking about 5 minutes to figure it out by reading the instructions.

What were the player interactions?

The player interactions consisted of us yelling at each other when we make a good piece placement because it knocks the other player off of the board.

Would you play it again?

Yes, 100%

Analyze the game using the 3 act structure.

In the beginning, it starts of slow with pieces moving little by little. In the middle, the game starts to pick up and pieces start moving more and more and someone gets the dragon card. In the end, it only takes one or two turns for the game to end by everyone knocking each other off the board quickly once the board fills up.

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

This is a very competitive game, since everyone is playing against each other. But there are also collaborative aspects by seeing what pieces other players are putting down, and placing your piece according to that.

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

The metaphor “The path of the dragon” shows that you are supposed to choose the correct path of the dragon, and there is only one correct path in the game; the winning path.

1. Was it fun? Yes, this game was fun. I enjoyed the mechanics of this game, it reminded me a little bit of Catan, which I haven’t played in YEARS. The bamboo pieces and the art was super cute too. I love these Japan themed games!!!
2. What were the player interactions? The player interactions were influenced by the actions that players made on their turns. For instance, if someone placed a certain color plot in a certain area, that may mess up other players’ cards for earning points for the layouts. Also if the players moved the panda to eat certain colors of bamboo, it would also mess up other players for completing certain objectives. Since this was an entirely new game for all of us, we also tried to help each other out a little bit, helping to guide each other’s moves for their turns. 
3. How long did it take to learn? It didn’t take very long at all to learn. The mechanics aren’t super complicated, and they are similar to other games. Although we realized about halfway through the game that we had misunderstood a part of the directions and were technically playing incorrectly so learning the rules wasn’t totally smooth lol. 
4. Would you play it again? Yes, I would play this game again, especially since now I know how to properly place the irrigation channels as the game intended. 
5. Analyze the game using the 3 act structure: The first act would have been the initial rounds of the game where we were still learning the rules and mechanics. This would also include the building of the game board itself because tiles were only placed during people’s turns. The second act would have been when we had a better grasp on the game. This is when we started being able to complete some objective cards and figured out how we could maybe affect other players by placing certain tiles or eating certain colors of bamboo. The third act would have been around when Colin got 6 cards. We knew that once he completed the last card that the final round would begin and he would get special points for that. It was pretty evident that no one else was going to reach 7 cards before him, but we were still a little uncertain about who would actually win, although Colin was very likely to. We then counted all of the points on our objective cards and sure enough, Colin won.
6. What are the collaborative and or competitive aspects of the game? This was a competitive game. Players competed against each other to complete 7 objective cards and whoever collected all 7 triggered the final round of play where players had the chance to complete as many remaining objectives as possible. The winner was based on whoever had the most points according to their completed objective cards. 
7. What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout? The game’s metaphor is a panda who is essentially taking over and eating a bunch of bamboo and a gardener is sort of trying to stop him. They included a comic to tell this story which was super cool!! One of the game’s mechanics that standout to me the most is having to roll a die to determine the weather conditions for your turn. Different weather conditions mean different things and all give you a different advantage for your turn. 

Was it fun?

yes the game was very fun, and the instructions were very straight forward.

What were the players’ interactions?

their was a lot of sabotage, every decision you made about what character you picked limited the choices of others. the assassin, thief, and warlord cards made it really fun because we started to know who had what card so it was more fun to kill or steal.

Would you play it again?

yes i would love to play, it is one of the few stratagem games that i really seem to enjoy. their were also a lot of cards that we didn’t end up using.

How long did it take to learn?

it was almost an immediate knowing of how to play after i read the rules, but over all i think the group took about 10 minutes.

Analyze the game using the 3-act structure.

their wasn’t much learning curve to the game to so the second act was most prevalent in this game, and the 3rd act was a very brief one because it may seem like one person was winning but then their can be so many curve balls thrown in with order of choice changed and with no clear circle of who plays next it was a very you don’t know until thieve already one type of feeling.

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

the competitive aspects of the game were very clear, with the king their was a competition for who gets to go first, and knowing that the game could change during every turn it made it even more a me against them than a bide your time type of game.

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

very single card having its own mechanic made the game so fun, my 3 favorites were the warlord that can destroy anyone’s buildings, the architect because you can build up to 3 buildings instead of one, and the merchant because of all the mone you can get.

the tile game( i forget the name)

Was it fun?

it was very simple and fun.

What were the players’ interactions?

their weren’t direct interactions but any tile you could place could lead to someone getting eliminated.

Would you play it again?

yes but i don’t think it has the play multiple rounds at once because it is almost the exact same every time.

How long did it take to learn?

the wording was a little weird but it was a pretty straight forward game, about 10 15 minutes.

Analyze the game using the 3-act structure.

their was never really a third act to the game, because their were so many lines on the board it was hard to tell if someone would get eliminated by their play, most of the time was spent in the second act.

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

the competitive is the fact if your close to someone you can force them out if you play your tiles wright.

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

none of the mechanics stand out to me, the only one that i think is cool is the fact you have to go to the end of a line and if someone else places them down you have to move too.