Category: Game Reviews

Evan’s music game(sorry i forgot the name)

I like the simplicity of it. All it takes is everyone rolling the die to determine the amount of cards they get. With said cards, you use them to create music which is then played at the end of the game. I think its brilliant because I have never seen anything like it. I could see teachers using this for students to learn how to make music.

Connor’s Building game

Similar to Evan’s, its another game that I have not seen before. I like the fact that its a race to win and requires skill in order to do good. I loved how there was different difficulties as well with a variety of different pieces to build with. The instruction were a litle confusing at first when we played but overall I think it is great. I loved the idea of making like a blueprint with the help sheet attached to it.

Was it fun?

Yes, but took a while to start to understand the game and what the different cards do.

What were the player interactions?

The player interactions were the vast majority of the game by implementing new rules such as only being allowed to have so many cards, and how many cards you can draw.

How long did it take to learn?

About 15 minutes to sort of understand the game enough to start.

Would you play it again?

Not specifically zombie fluxx, but I would play other fluxx games in the future.

Analyze the game using the 3 act structure.

In the beginning, there are no rules and the game just starts and goes like normal. In the middle, the game starts to get interesting based on what keepers you have and what rules are going into place. In the end, you start to get more keepers and the game ends when you reach the goal card, which tends to come quickly when a lucky goal comes in place for someone.

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

Collaborative includes placing rules to better the pace of play. But, competitive can be the same by implementing bad rules on the same people to make the game go slower.

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

The metaphor is that you are always trying to reach a goal that isn’t reachable at the moment. But eventually, your cards will align and you will reach your goal. Just like real life.

1. Not feeding your animals all the way by the end.
2. I enjoyed when we altered the game and had to take food away from our own animals to pay debts.
3. I wish I was able to see the animals in my deck in order to read the other players and what they plan on playing.
4. More food, and different food values.
5. Being able to view your cards, food values, less than 3 rounds, and the power of certain animals were a little off. (EX: Donkey being too low)
6. Simple yet fun

1. Figuring out whether or not something was AI, but it is the point of the game so it is fun.
2. I enjoyed trying to trick other players into thinking a card was AI that I had to put down.
3. I wish I was able to know which of my cards were AI so I can attempt to trick players, but it would also drastically change the game so it isn’t an easy change.
4. I would add even more cards so you cannot memorize them.
5. More cards, obvious cards and harder cards to tell.
6. Tests your brain

1. The most frustrating moment of the game is when someone finishes before you due to the card being much easier.
2. I enjoyed the scrambling for pieces at the beginning of the round.
3. I wish I was able to make even bigger pieces, upscaling the game to be even more complex would be fun.
4. I would make the game board larger with more aspects.
5. Larger / more complex board, more complex builds, cool building pieces.
6. Quick Easy Fun

It’s a new kind of game to play for me. I like the use of the sun rotating around the board to give players certain unique advantages. On top of the you can strategize to put the tall tree in the center to block sunlight from other characters trees but your own. The only problem I see is that if there’s a new person playing the game, the other players can easily exploit this and win the game easily. I think it would be cool if there was a way to remove other players trees to slow their progress. Interesting game to play but I’m not sure if it’s the type of game I would play.

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.