Critique the Oct 2008 GDS Challenge Entries

If my entry is at 830 words, then it should be disqualified. Ironically, the very last thing that I did before I submitted my entry via e-mail was to use a word count script online to calculate the number of words in my submission entry.

For future such contests, it would be helpful and also help to ensure uniformity if a specific word count script accessible to all contestants was used to judge the contest entries. I don't recall, off the top of my head, which word count script that I used to count the words, but the word count can vary a great deal, it seems, depending upon which one that you use. As an example to illustrate this point, here are two word count scripts available for free use online:

http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/countwords.shtml
NOTE: Counted my entry at 826 words

http://www.wordcounttool.com/
NOTE Counted my entry at 814 words

Both are over 800 words, but it's rather odd that there's a 12 word difference in the exact, same text copied and pasted into both.

On a separate note, I didn't even think about Halloween, when the contest was posted. It may seem obvious, but I only focused upon the monsters aspect, rather than the Halloween-monsters connection. It's funny, in hindsight, but such is life, I suppose.

Though the word count noted on my entry is 30 higher than it reports through those links mentioned, I’m still way over. All my scrabbling to finish up my rules, I never thought to check.
Sadly, I had to leave out a lot of rules just to keep it at a Semi-Humongous Wall of Text.

Either way, I had fun with the Monster theme and will check my word count on the next entry. I just finished reading all the entries as well and was interesting to see others perspective on Monsters.

True, but the general system has been to take such things into voting consideration rather than discounting. Being 30 words over with what is clearly the best game (for example, haven't read the entries yet) would likely be the one I voted for. If you were 30 words over and I was torn between yours and one other that wasn't 30 words over, I'd vote for it, counting those words against you.

Further, if you were 800 words over, I would just personally discount the entry, no matter how good it was. In the end, I think leaving minor rule-breaking like that to the judges, noting it for their consideration. That's my opinion.

===============================
Entry #1 - Great Blobs of Fire!
===============================
1. I disliked the basic idea. I do not think that it made me to think of monsters, at all.

2. I do not consider the game to be particularly innovative in its design.

3. All in all, it was a boring entry to read through.

====================================
Entry #2 - Monsters of the Big House
====================================
This was my entry into this contest, and as such, I am not well placed to objectively judge my own game design. I will say, however, that I think that there are better entries for others to vote for than my own. On a side note, I think that my game entry's board would make a little more sense, if the image used was actually large enough to read all of the text on it. Overall, it is aesthetically lacking. Having no real artistic talent helped to make that possible.

=========================
Entry #3 - Ghost Trappers
=========================
1. The theme instantly conjured up images of the movie Ghostbusters in my head. I disliked making this connection, since it ended up seeming less original as an idea, although I think that, overall, the design of the game did a pretty good job of using thematic elements that were in keeping with the idea that the designer decided to go with.

2. I very much liked the rule that the youngest player goes first.

3. I especially liked the portion of the rules which stated:

The players put their ghost markers, equal to the number of trappers deployed to a haunted room, into the bag. Each player then takes a random marker from the bag. * If it matches their color, the player can place it anywhere they like. The player ghost must replace a neutral ghost, which goes into the bag.

=========================================
Entry #4 - Team Killdozer: Emergence of the Crystalmongers
============================================
1. I liked the fact that the entry name for this game was very colorful.

2. I liked the "creatures living beneath the surface of the Earth" idea.

3. I disliked the fact that these creatures had an economy, at all. It just seemed to strike me as somewhat less monstrous of a race/species.

4. Paranoid gun nuts plus killdozers is a good concept within the overall game.

5. I liked the increasing strength and size of the attacking waves of creatures.

6. Overall, I think that the idea is stronger than the implementation of that idea, where this game is concerned. I think that this would result in low replayability, due to boredom.

=========================================
Entry #5 - The Haunting of Lower Thelwich
=========================================
1. I very much liked the vampire hunter concept for the game. Vampires and vampire hunters are colorful and get the adrenaline flowing quickly in anticipation of what the rules hold.

2. I like the prospect of allegiances changing quickly, where unlucky encounters are concerned.

3. The mid-18th century setting is a plus.

4. Color coding of encounters is good.

5. I liked the use of rumors, but disliked that rumors can be spent to draw extra cards or to evade enemies. That seemed, to me, to be more powerful rather than more distracting, which is what a rumor's role would seem to me to be proper.

6. I like that a vampire hunter's power can increase over time.

7. I didn't particularly care for the point system for determining who wins.

=================
Entry #6 - DNeigh
=================
1. The foreword/overview for this entry was weak in its impact upon me, as far as finding it to be tempting and enticing to make me want to try the game.

2. When I saw the 81 DNA upgrades listed in the components list, that caused my interest in the game to spike.

3. The look of the board is interesting, although I probably wouldn't buy the game, if the box showed what the board actually looked like.

4. Reading the rules caused me to lose interest in the game, the more that I read, the more that my interest level dropped.

5. The DNA aspect rates very highly for uniqueness, but the description of the board, tracks, and mechanics transforms this uniqueness to bland and boring.

====================
Entry #7 - GeneArena
====================
1. Oops! Another DNA game, so this one rates lower for uniqueness than the DNA entry that preceded it. Sorry, but that's just the way the ball bounces.

2. The concept of hosting a monster fight caused my interest level in the game to decline.

3. I like the board. It's relatively simple, but catches my eye. I think that it would be conducive to a monster fight type of game.

4. My interest spiked when I read the part of the rules which stated:

DNA cards feature an additional number: Chance.

I think that that makes this DNA entry better than the preceding DNA entry.

5. Serum cards with one-time effects is a good idea.

6. The DNA cards to place under simple animals is an interesting approach. The simple animals aspect is not so interesting, though.

7. The combat mechanic for this entry is interesting, I think, and I think that the replayability factor of this game is increased, because of it.

=========================
Entry #8 - Monster Island
=========================
1. The name is not original, by any means, but I always find the idea of monsters on an island to be interesting.

2. I liked that there are 30 pieces representing human victims. Human victims has a nice ring to it in a monster themed game. It just makes the game seem more monsterish, if that's a word.

3. The lego-type approach to monsters rates high on the uniqueness scale, I think. Reading that part of the rules increases my interest level.

4. Special shaped body pieces to grant monsters special abilities is a plus. The abilities of these special shaped body parts also helps to invoke the monster image for this game - dropping eggs, shooting fire or radiation, especially.

5. The way that the growth cards have so many of lower level, but only a few of upper level, is a plus.

6. I like that the players have the option of connecting their starting pieces, as desired,or holding them for later use, as they see fit. That's a big plus, in my book.

7. Different point values for different sized monster body parts is a good concept.

8. I dislike very much that the heads of the monsters cannot be killed. A big thumbs down on that design concept. Boo! Hiss! Boo!! Bad design. Bad design.

9. The part about the rules where the player chooses whether to grow has more than one good concept in it. Specifically, if the player chooses to make their monster grow, the rest of that player's turn is forfeited, then that is a good approach. It makes sense to imbue the player with a power-enhancing option, but at a noticeable price - namely, the rest of that player's turn.

Allowing the player to add any number of pieces in the build/heal to their monster's body during the same turn is another good idea.

Allowing additional cards to be played is not a bad thing, I don't think, but this concept is not nearly as good and interesting of a concept as the other two in this same section of the rules.

10. Distinguishing between being able to kill humans and grabbing them adds another monster element to this game. I think that grabbing humans and the grabbed humans then moving with the monster is a great concept for inclusion into a monster type game. However, I do not think that the game designer capitalized very well on this potentially exciting aspect of game play. This is a prime example of a game mechanic that misses being a great mechanic, and settling only for good, at best. The rules seem unclear as to why grabbing a human becomes somehow more advantageous than just killing one, outright.

=========
Summation
=========
I liked the vampire hunter concept entry the best, although I think that the Ghost Trappers entry made a better use of thematic elements, where their respective themes chosen by the respective designers in question are concerned.

However, I think that the best overall design, from a game design standpoint, is the Monster Island entry. Ghost Trappers might have a higher replayability factor, though. I'm just not sure.

So, while it was not an easy choice, I have decided to cast my vote for this contest for Entry #8 - Monster Island. It has some really powerful game design elements included in it.

Well, this being my first time entering and participating in the GDS, I'm not 100% sure on the preferred format for feedback, but GrimFinger gave me a pretty good example, so I'll use that as a guide. I've tried to find at least one positive and one negative about each game, and suggest ideas when possible on how the game might be able to address the things I found as negatives.

----------------------------------

Entry #1 - Great Blobs of Fire
- Essentially a territory control game
- Good intro, but mechanics don't deliver "country destroying" play
- Even use of advancements doesn't guarantee direct player interaction, which is lacking in this design
- The current rules do not address how to resolve a tied auction bid; perhaps an opportune place to add some player interaction (voting, bribery, diplomacy, etc.)

Entry #2 - Monsters of the Big House
- Up to 10 guards per player is an interesting way to delay player elimination
- Clarity of who fulfills the role of "inmate player" not clearly defined; problematic when resolving the Escape space
- Not a huge fan of the setting, but it meshes well with the mechanics

Entry #3 - Ghost Trappers
- Mechanics strongly matched to the theme elements they represent
- Feels suited to either serious or humorous presentation, depending on visual design
- Drawing from bag is an elegant solution to randomization
- Conjures images of Ghost Busters and Luigi's Mansion (for better or worse)

Entry #4 - Team Killdozer: Emergence of the Crystalmongers
- Team goals promote cooperative play
- Simplicity in game play is a plus
- Description of the game board would help to picture rules "in action"
- Amusing setting; good for casual gaming or introducing new players to gaming

Entry #5 - The Haunting of Lower Thelwich
- Like the idea of an encounter queue
- Interaction among cards drawn (hunter, vampire, witness) is novel and adds depth to the game world
- Player/vampire killing all 3 hunters doesn't really mean victory, just the end of play; could be an alternate victory condition instead of points (i.e. points for players, 3 hunter kills for player/vampires)
- Reminds me of Fantasy Flight's "Fury of Dracula"

Entry #6 - DNeigh
- Lots of potential for replayability with DNA cards
- Board is somewhat confusing without more detailed explanation
- Good concept, but doesn't seem terribly exciting

Entry #7 - GeneArena
- Easy to keep track of numerical elements
- Arena combat not very original premise
- Monster-less players stuck with playing kingmaker or doing nothing in late game
- Chance number helps keep combat from being predictable

Entry #8 - Monster Island
- Physically building your custom monster is just simply a fun idea
- Simple gathering concept works very well in this format
- Removing parts and build/heal pile efficiently handle damage tracking
- Player interaction is direct and visceral (thanks to nature of playing pieces)

----------------------------------

There were some thought provoking mechanics in these entries, as well as some very left-field approaches to what constitutes a "monster". I feel that each game had its strengths, and considering that they are not intended to be polished, publisher-ready games, there was some solid work done in each game. (Good work, everyone!)

After reading and rereading the entries, I feel my vote belongs with Monster Island. The ingenious approach to the requirement of growing/advancing your monster as play progresses, and the use of direct competition over finite resources (in this case, humans) as the source of conflict struck me as an fun combination of mechanics with high replay value, while the theme of the game (monsters eating/capturing people) is much like what comes to mind with the utterance of the word "monster".

So ideally, would the distinction have had functional differences aside from simply when they score points?

(By the by, someone please let me know if there's any sort of forbiddance on discussing material that had to be omitted due to word count restrictions; I'm not aiming to break any rules, but I am curious about some of the games beyond what was presented.)

Little wonder you have so few entries in these contests. Being close minded about improving the process certainly doesn't make for better contests nor a better site.

I'm no authority on the etiquette of the GDS, but in the interest of maintaining designer anonymity, I'd suggest that it would be better to save specific questions about the entries until after the voting has closed. (Or that you not expect an answer before designer identities are revealed.)

That said, I would strongly encourage asking questions and discussing the games once the voting is over. I found curiosity about my design to be motivating and inspiring when I submitted a game a while back. It helps get the development process moving, and highlights good ideas as well as kinks that need to be worked out.

It could be just the "pixel factor" Seo, it is hard to tell whether some one is being offensive when reading from a screen (been there done that).

The critiques are looking good though, it looks like monster island is up there.

Have all you readers voted? takes less than a minute to click the button.

Hey Bryk, do you have a BGG account? I think I need to send you some geek gold for putting up with this crap. This is supposed to be for fun. If you're not enjoying yourself, go make your own damn challenge with your own rules and leave Bryk alone. I've run little online contests before, and they always take far more time than you suspect. Bryk is being *very* generous to give us this much of his time.

Well done, Dannorder!

Does anyone have any expectation they'll continue to develop their designs, this time around?

I heartily second the congratulations to Dannorder, and congratulate all who entered a design in this challenge. I had fun putting mine together and reading everyone's entries. I'm still writing a critique to post...

I'd like to keep developing mine; your feedback in particular encouraged me to work on it more. I'll create a game journal or blog one of these days. (Any suggestion as to which would work best? I'm not too familiar with this site, other than the GDS...)

Great Blobs of Fire
The mechanics here generally suit the theme of blobs creeping across a landscape. I can imagine players role-playing their mad scientists as they gleefully crush villages. I like how the the power-ups add variety to the way players expand their blobs, and I think auctions for more powerful ones would be heated. But overall, it doesn't present an engaging experience to me. The “border two blobs” rule seems like it would limit creative and strategic blob growth. A different board could help this-- terrain or a shared starting area might make blob growth more competitive. I find that the “completely enclosed spaces” victory condition lacks thematic punch, and it seems like it would be hard to accomplish much, especially as blobs start vying for territory. Finishing with the most money might be a good indicator of effective village crushing and resource management. Also, unless the advancements are carefully balanced, I think victory could come down to winning one or two auctions. A well written and cleanly presented idea.

Monsters in the Big House
I give this design credit for creative interpretation of the challenge. I like that it has players in different roles, even if the details thereof aren't made entirely clear in the entry. I like the “ten lives” mechanic for the guards. I think the game lacks mechanical depth, though. Players' options seem extremely limited, especially the guards, and most important events are dictated by die rolls and landing on specific spaces. Above all, I'm afraid I find the theme repellent. I can't enjoy playing a game about killing prisoners for money, especially when their crimes are petty things like poultry theft.

Ghost Hunters
I liked the theme of this game, and the way it meshes with the mechanics. The board feels well suited to the action of the game. There seems to be a sense of precariousness throughout the game, with constant potential for both success and disaster. The power-ups are all attractive yet not overly powerful, and very cleverly named. Lots of strategic decisions to be made and a good amount of player interaction and competition, and the pace seems like it would be quick. The bag draw mechanic adds an element of chance, but is also self-balancing (bad luck won't last forever). I found this game to be tightly designed, well presented, impressively complete (I think it could play well as written), and solid overall.

Team Killdozer: Emergence of the Crystalmongers
I enjoy cooperative games, and to me this one has a good video game feel. Team up, trade power-ups, and blast away! Like Hedge-o-Matic, I find myself sympathizing with the Crystalmongers more than the gun nuts, but ignoring that, the general theme of fending off monsters with customizable tanks is cool. I can see the game getting frantic as it progresses-- later waves would pile on earlier ones if the player slack, and surviving would be a challenge. If power-ups had particular synergy with different Killdozers, the power-ups trading could be a particularly fun element. Simplifying combat and minimizing health bookkeeping might speed this game up, and I think it deserves to be fast and furious. I also keep imagining it using a hex map.

The Haunting of Lower Thelwich
This was my entry. Thanks to everyone who critiqued it. I very much appreciate the feedback, suggestions, and above all the inspiration to keep working on improving this game. I'll respond to a few points here.
Grimfinger: “Rumors” may need to be renamed; I imagine them as bits of information like places to search that could be used to better explore (draw more cards). The escape mechanic may be off theme; it was meant to force the player to decide how best to spend rumors. I'll probably revise the victory conditions; the current scoring method encourages players to fight alone and hunt ghouls, which is not the point.
tlmirkes: I'm glad you liked the encounter queue and card interaction ideas; I'd like to develop them further. The victory conditions clearly need revision. I was afraid that just killing three hunters might be too easy, but that could be an intriguing wrinkle-- players might try harder to become vampires late in the game.
Hedge-o-Matic: I'm glad you called me out on the misuse of “Haunting.” I liked the ring of it, and thought I could get away with the inaccuracy. I was wrong! I'm thrilled that this game interested you so much. I do want to develop this further; I'll post a game journal soon, and I welcome further suggestions.
isamoor: I am a big fan of Arkham Horror, and a few Arkham mechanics inspired parts of this game. But I don't think my design is nearly as similar as your comment suggests. I'm sorry that's all you saw.

DNeigh
Despite the length, I read through this game a couple times. I like the theme of monster building, and needing monsters to build more and better monsters is a good way to keep the game rolling. The DNA pool and the gene stacking mechanic are intriguing. I like how they intersect with the movement and gathering mechanics. The turn structure and assistant movement weren't entirely clear to me, along with a few other little things. I think the various parts of the game can come together into a fun and competitive whole, but it's still hard for me to really imagine how it all flows together. The length of the entry and lack of organization are hiding good mechanics that can really compliment a fun theme.

GeneArena
This game put some good twists on the arena combat style of game. The gradual monster building creates flexibility and variety in the game play, and I like how serums can change the situation quickly; both would encourage anticipation and tactical movement. The chance number is a solid mechanic for combat resolution, and forces tough decisions in card playing. To me, the theme is a troublesome hybrid of two kinds of animal cruelty; it would need to be shifted a couple steps further from reality for me to find it palatable. Still, good card-based combat and creature-building mechanics.

Monster Island
I can see really creative and bizarre monsters being built in this game, sprawling monstrosities with limbs all over the place, and that sounds like a lot of fun. The growth mechanics seem well balanced, and I like that it's relatively easy for monsters to regrow parts and stay in the game. It avoids the problems of having perpetually weak monsters or players being eliminated entirely. I like that combat is straightforward and the human-chomping premise is simple: I think that keeps the focus on building monsters with creative and strategic combinations of parts and rampaging across the land. Having obstacles in the terrain is another good idea that forces strategic building and movement. A very good idea, and one that would really shine with well-made pieces.