- What is needed in a game? – Rules, feedback system, goals and voluntary participation.
- Munchkins is a highly recommended card game that may be good for me to get.
- Everyone seemed to love my game! :D
- Peer feedback on my groups game –
o
Slow to begin with but becomes good fun and
combative when you have to decide on strategies to beat the others.
o
Wasn’t 100% clear on whether you got eliminated
when next to the dungeon’s walls e.g. 3 lines next to one.
o
Pieces (figurines) were too big compared to the
board.
o
Door blocking wasn’t clear.
o
Liked the D&D feel.
- My group’s feedback on the peer game ‘Square-opoly’ –
o
Landing on a Train Station does not result in anything.
Maybe they could teleport you to other stations on the board?
o
Parts of the rules were not very clear.
o
Scoreboards are confusing.
o
Jackpot did not do anything.
o
A small nit-pick, you only really need one dice,
otherwise you constantly miss locations on the board.
o
Unlike Monopoly which obviously inspired this
game, landing on ‘Go’ did not result in anything.
o
Also unlike Monopoly there is a ‘Jail’ space.
However, it was not clear if the rule in Monopoly ‘Just visiting’ still applied
or not when you landed on it.
o
Goes on for a little too long due to the amount
of points you need. Therefore maybe change the points needed to twenty points instead
of forty.
o
Overall, it was a bit of a drawn out game but
otherwise it works.
- My personal review of ‘Square-opoly’ –
o
The first game I played was basically Monopoly but
called itself Square-opoly. However, instead of buying properties you drew a
line when you landed on one in order to try and create a square. Once a square
was created you would own the property and thus collect points (the replacement
for money in the game) whenever a player landed on it. Rather like Monopoly it
was long but, I personally did not find it as much fun as I hoped it would be
due to how long it took to acquire forty points. This was because it took a
long time to secure a location and the one point tax that was on each property.
Thus it was very hard to get to own a property in the game, let alone have a
player land on it. Overall, I would say that this game would make a good
prototype as it contained the supports for a good interpretation on the game
squares. However, the issues above combined with rules that were not 100% clear
pulled the game back from making it a recommendation. If the game can improve
its faults then I would be very happy to give it a second shot. Also maybe if
each property had different taxes on them as in Monopoly then this would not
only make it easier to win the game but also add a bit more variety.
- My group’s feedback on the peer game ‘Mr. Square’ –
o
Could maybe start on a block instead of a
corner.
o
Pen colours or background colours need to change
so as the pen marks show.
o
Good simplistic fun.
o
Starts a bit slow but gets very competitive and more
engrossing as the game goes on.
o
As everyone had the same paths it soon became a
game of chance with the dice when players discovered the best path to take.
- My personal review of ‘Mr. Square’ –
No comments:
Post a Comment