So, Games in Community is finished. A very interesting class, and I learned quite a bit.
Most of what I learned was about game designers. We talked to multiple in class.
I learned that game designers make "dozens of dollars" from their games, and that there's almost no way to make a living as a game designer without creating a viral hit like Settlers. But I also learned that you don't need to make money from your games. You can make games as a hobby.
I also learned that there isn't a huge barrier to entry to the board game market. If you like making games, and are willing to put the time and effort in, you can probably make games. Publishers are friendly (Well, why not, it's not like designers are going to cost them much). But, essentially, if I wanted to make games, I could.
In conclusion, an awesome class. I love board games.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
1/28/14
Today, I played a new, interesting game, created by whose name escapes me.
It was similar to settlers in some respects, but very different in others. It is a 4-player game with teams of two. Players build cities to gain resources and gold every turn, which they can use to buy more cities, roads, armies, or tiles. Armies can destroy other armies, cities, and take over tiles, but are expended upon use. There are two ways to win: gaining 4/7 of the tiles, or building up a tower in the middle to completion. We didn't finish our game.
Some of the game mechanics felt arbitrary, for example, there was a limit of 4 cities, which was reached in the first few turns. It felt very arbitrary. The tower in the middle. Why did it make us win? The tile taking over and tower control seemed very different objectives. But if a team could win one, they could also win the other. There wasn't too much strategy; spam cities at the beginning, armies at the end. The resource gaining was also difficult. A city got the resource on its tile plus 2 of the others adjacent east, west, north, or south. Too many choices here, but not enough in other places. Players did mention in feedback that some sort of defensive structures would be nice, to give some variety in the endgame.
The rules were relatively clear, but gameplay was somewhat difficult, especially resource collection. Further revisions of the game are needed.
It was a pretty friendly game, but frustration was had when trying to figure out what resources to get.
In conclusion, a decently fun game, that needs future revisions.
It was similar to settlers in some respects, but very different in others. It is a 4-player game with teams of two. Players build cities to gain resources and gold every turn, which they can use to buy more cities, roads, armies, or tiles. Armies can destroy other armies, cities, and take over tiles, but are expended upon use. There are two ways to win: gaining 4/7 of the tiles, or building up a tower in the middle to completion. We didn't finish our game.
Some of the game mechanics felt arbitrary, for example, there was a limit of 4 cities, which was reached in the first few turns. It felt very arbitrary. The tower in the middle. Why did it make us win? The tile taking over and tower control seemed very different objectives. But if a team could win one, they could also win the other. There wasn't too much strategy; spam cities at the beginning, armies at the end. The resource gaining was also difficult. A city got the resource on its tile plus 2 of the others adjacent east, west, north, or south. Too many choices here, but not enough in other places. Players did mention in feedback that some sort of defensive structures would be nice, to give some variety in the endgame.
The rules were relatively clear, but gameplay was somewhat difficult, especially resource collection. Further revisions of the game are needed.
It was a pretty friendly game, but frustration was had when trying to figure out what resources to get.
In conclusion, a decently fun game, that needs future revisions.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
1/24/14
Today, I played Werewolf.
Werewolf
Werewolf is a card game of mystery. If you've played Mafia, it's very similar. At the beginning, each player randomly receives a card. A few players are werewolves. Most of the players are villagers. Some villagers have special powers. For example, the hunter, when killed, gets to chose someone else to immediately kill. There are two teams, werewolves vs. villagers. Each round, everyone "goes to sleep" (closes their eyes), and then different people "wake up" based on their role. The werewolves choose someone to kill, the villagers with special powers use them, and then everyone wakes up together. The villagers vote on one person (one special power doubles this number) to kill off, and that player reveals their card. The werewolves win when the number of remaining werewolves equals the number of remaining villagers. The villagers win when all the werewolves are dead. I was a werewolf in both the games I played, and I'm terrible at it.
The voting mechanic is very interesting and fun. Everyone's trying to figure out who the werewolf is. And if you get suspected at one point, you're probably going to get killed off. So you have to balance the accusations and the defending. Human psychology game.
The rules are very simple, and nobody really has to even think about them. The special powers do need some explaining, however.
A ruthless game where friends turn on friends, and the slightest movement can get you in trouble. Relatively competitive.
In conclusion, a fun twist on Mafia.
Werewolf
Werewolf is a card game of mystery. If you've played Mafia, it's very similar. At the beginning, each player randomly receives a card. A few players are werewolves. Most of the players are villagers. Some villagers have special powers. For example, the hunter, when killed, gets to chose someone else to immediately kill. There are two teams, werewolves vs. villagers. Each round, everyone "goes to sleep" (closes their eyes), and then different people "wake up" based on their role. The werewolves choose someone to kill, the villagers with special powers use them, and then everyone wakes up together. The villagers vote on one person (one special power doubles this number) to kill off, and that player reveals their card. The werewolves win when the number of remaining werewolves equals the number of remaining villagers. The villagers win when all the werewolves are dead. I was a werewolf in both the games I played, and I'm terrible at it.
The voting mechanic is very interesting and fun. Everyone's trying to figure out who the werewolf is. And if you get suspected at one point, you're probably going to get killed off. So you have to balance the accusations and the defending. Human psychology game.
The rules are very simple, and nobody really has to even think about them. The special powers do need some explaining, however.
A ruthless game where friends turn on friends, and the slightest movement can get you in trouble. Relatively competitive.
In conclusion, a fun twist on Mafia.
Monday, January 27, 2014
1/23/14
Today, I played Stone Age.
Stone Age
Stone Age is a temporary worker placement and resource gathering game. Players take turns placing workers in various places: resource gathering, food gathering, and benefit gaining places. Then the players take their workers back, gain the benefits, and the next player in the order starts placing their person down. Certain buildings and cards that you can buy give players victory points. The player with the most victory points at the end of the game wins. In the game I played, I won.
The worker placement mechanic is used to very good effect. Gameplay is fun and balanced. There's not a whole lot of bad moves you can make, just good moves and very good moves. The mechanics fit together well; they create a cohesive experience. Many strategies can be pursued.
The rules were very simple, and gameplay was smooth. There were basically no questions about rules.
It was a pretty friendly game. There was some blocking done to me to prolong the game, but I could still benefit myself through other actions. You can mess up people's strategy, but this is usually very short-term.
In conclusion, a very fun, simple, game, with interesting use of worker placement. I really want to get this.
Stone Age
Stone Age is a temporary worker placement and resource gathering game. Players take turns placing workers in various places: resource gathering, food gathering, and benefit gaining places. Then the players take their workers back, gain the benefits, and the next player in the order starts placing their person down. Certain buildings and cards that you can buy give players victory points. The player with the most victory points at the end of the game wins. In the game I played, I won.
The worker placement mechanic is used to very good effect. Gameplay is fun and balanced. There's not a whole lot of bad moves you can make, just good moves and very good moves. The mechanics fit together well; they create a cohesive experience. Many strategies can be pursued.
The rules were very simple, and gameplay was smooth. There were basically no questions about rules.
It was a pretty friendly game. There was some blocking done to me to prolong the game, but I could still benefit myself through other actions. You can mess up people's strategy, but this is usually very short-term.
In conclusion, a very fun, simple, game, with interesting use of worker placement. I really want to get this.
1/22/14
Today I taught Forbidden Desert and played Shadows over Camelot.
Forbidden Desert
Forbidden Desert is a cooperative game against the board. Players play as a group of adventurers who were going to excavate a ancient city in the desert, but become stranded in a sandstorm, with their only hope of survival being a ancient flying machine. Players take turns moving, clearing sand, excavating, and picking up pieces of the machine. At the end of each of their turns, players draw storm cards, which either move the storm (and add sand) force players drink some of their precious water, or make the storm more powerful. The players win by getting the pieces of the machine to the takeoff platform. The players lose by having one player run out of water, too much sand piling up.
The storm fighting the players is an interesting mechanic, but it feels too easy early on, and too difficult later on. It also seems unfair when the cards that force the players to drink get stacked together. Some games are just impossible to win, and some are difficult to lose. But that middle section is tons of fun. Trying to get out of the desert before the sandstorm overwhelms the players, gives a sense of urgency to the game.
The rules were pretty simple for the most part, the mechanics fit together decently. There is a real sense of being in the desert; after I ran out of water and we lost, everyone was thirsty.
The game is a friendly cooperative game. There was little argument over what we should do. We all worked together to try to survive, and we all lost together.
In conclusion, a fun game, that takes a little while to get a feel for.
Shadows over Camelot
Shadows over Camelot is a cooperative game of adventure and questing. Players go to different points on the map, completing quests and trying to defend Camelot from the forces of evil. Completing quests gives white swords, failing them gives black swords. The players win if they gain 7 white swords before 7 black swords. My teacher messed us several rules, got annoyed at us if we didn't understand, and simplified things so the game made less sense. I'm hoping he just had a bad day.
Perhaps a different teacher would have made the game more fun. But for this experience, the game was confusing, long, and asking questions were discouraged. Much of the game was searching through the rulebook looking for rules, and we still didn't get many of them right. A bad playing experience.
In conclusion, a game that is probably more fun than I had when I played it today.
Forbidden Desert
Forbidden Desert is a cooperative game against the board. Players play as a group of adventurers who were going to excavate a ancient city in the desert, but become stranded in a sandstorm, with their only hope of survival being a ancient flying machine. Players take turns moving, clearing sand, excavating, and picking up pieces of the machine. At the end of each of their turns, players draw storm cards, which either move the storm (and add sand) force players drink some of their precious water, or make the storm more powerful. The players win by getting the pieces of the machine to the takeoff platform. The players lose by having one player run out of water, too much sand piling up.
The storm fighting the players is an interesting mechanic, but it feels too easy early on, and too difficult later on. It also seems unfair when the cards that force the players to drink get stacked together. Some games are just impossible to win, and some are difficult to lose. But that middle section is tons of fun. Trying to get out of the desert before the sandstorm overwhelms the players, gives a sense of urgency to the game.
The rules were pretty simple for the most part, the mechanics fit together decently. There is a real sense of being in the desert; after I ran out of water and we lost, everyone was thirsty.
The game is a friendly cooperative game. There was little argument over what we should do. We all worked together to try to survive, and we all lost together.
In conclusion, a fun game, that takes a little while to get a feel for.
Shadows over Camelot
Shadows over Camelot is a cooperative game of adventure and questing. Players go to different points on the map, completing quests and trying to defend Camelot from the forces of evil. Completing quests gives white swords, failing them gives black swords. The players win if they gain 7 white swords before 7 black swords. My teacher messed us several rules, got annoyed at us if we didn't understand, and simplified things so the game made less sense. I'm hoping he just had a bad day.
Perhaps a different teacher would have made the game more fun. But for this experience, the game was confusing, long, and asking questions were discouraged. Much of the game was searching through the rulebook looking for rules, and we still didn't get many of them right. A bad playing experience.
In conclusion, a game that is probably more fun than I had when I played it today.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
1/21/14
Today, I played Power Grid.
Power Grid
Power Grid is a game of electricity production. Gameplay consists of buying factories and fuel, and supplying cities. For the number of cities you supply, you get money (more for more cities). It sounds simple, but it's not. We didn't get very far; it took a while to set up and explain, and then we only had 45 minutes left.
The mechanic of spending resources each turn to power your cities was interesting. But some of the other mechanics didn't feel like they fit together so well. Maybe things would move more smoothly later in the game.
Gameplay is relatively complex. It started to get better as the game went on, but no one's strategy really came to fruition, obviously.
The game was pretty friendly, people helping each other out trying to figure out strategy.
In conclusion, a fun game, but one I really need to finish to get a feel for.
Power Grid
Power Grid is a game of electricity production. Gameplay consists of buying factories and fuel, and supplying cities. For the number of cities you supply, you get money (more for more cities). It sounds simple, but it's not. We didn't get very far; it took a while to set up and explain, and then we only had 45 minutes left.
The mechanic of spending resources each turn to power your cities was interesting. But some of the other mechanics didn't feel like they fit together so well. Maybe things would move more smoothly later in the game.
Gameplay is relatively complex. It started to get better as the game went on, but no one's strategy really came to fruition, obviously.
The game was pretty friendly, people helping each other out trying to figure out strategy.
In conclusion, a fun game, but one I really need to finish to get a feel for.
Game Host Self-Assessment
So, last Tuesday, I taught San Juan. For class, I now need to do a self-evaluation of my teaching.
What did I do well?
I feel like I did a really good job explaining the basic rules. San Juan is a game that makes sense to me, so I felt like I could explain things organically, according to the goals of the game. We had to do an open hand round, but after that, things went very smoothly. The rules in this game seem complex at first, but fit together like a puzzle, and are quite logical. It simplifies teaching that San Juan is such an open-ended game; there are many possible strategies. I didn't have to give a lot of help in that way. This was listed as a "very difficult" game, but it seemed very easy to me.
How could you improve the next time you teach a game?
I don't know that there's anything I could really improve. Maybe experience playing will show me some things, but everything went pretty smoothly. Perhaps I could give more advice on strategy to people who were a bit slower. But I think everyone was having fun, and there's not really a way to get stuck in the game; a player can only really go a bit slower than everyone else.
Has your approach to gaming changed in any way?
No, I consider this teaching to be a complete success.
What did I do well?
I feel like I did a really good job explaining the basic rules. San Juan is a game that makes sense to me, so I felt like I could explain things organically, according to the goals of the game. We had to do an open hand round, but after that, things went very smoothly. The rules in this game seem complex at first, but fit together like a puzzle, and are quite logical. It simplifies teaching that San Juan is such an open-ended game; there are many possible strategies. I didn't have to give a lot of help in that way. This was listed as a "very difficult" game, but it seemed very easy to me.
How could you improve the next time you teach a game?
I don't know that there's anything I could really improve. Maybe experience playing will show me some things, but everything went pretty smoothly. Perhaps I could give more advice on strategy to people who were a bit slower. But I think everyone was having fun, and there's not really a way to get stuck in the game; a player can only really go a bit slower than everyone else.
Has your approach to gaming changed in any way?
No, I consider this teaching to be a complete success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)