Critique the September 2005 GDS Challenge Entries

Awesome awesome.

There is some truly creative stuff here, very entertaining to read. I was glad to see that people took all sorts of liberties with the "animals" theme to make their game unique. We see everything here from domestic to exotic to invented to anthropomorphized to symbolized. Such a wide variety of mechanics showed up, too. Great efforts all around, looking forward to other comments, the detailed reviews that are sure to come, and of course, the results. (This is my first Showdown entry.)

Good luck everyone!

~Josh

Isn't Sleepy Bear for 3-6 kids of age 6, not for kids of age 3-6? I sure hope so, because I think 3 year olds are going to be completely lost in there!

Fantastic job, one and all! I guess there is something about animals that just brings out the warm and fuzzies in us all. Or perhaps it was the G-rated restriction?

Huh, I thought I was voting for yours, seo! I should know better than to guess by now.

Yogurt

So we actually did have fewer votes than entries? (13 vs 14) How does THAT happen?

Bug Collecting was delicious. My number #1 vote, and I'm glad to see it win!

Ketchikan was my number #2 vote, although those gorgeous rendered pictures almost made me not vote for it out of pure green envy. ;) Halfway through the rules I was convinced it was far too complex, but the variants at the end pull me back.

My third vote was for The Circle of Life, which I thought was a good introduction to tile laying.

I laughed to see Safari Party's premise, because a giant party that spirals out of control was my original concept too, but I couldn't make it work. Stackanimals actually exists as a game already; but I forget its German name.

I was surprised Sleepy Bear seemed complex to some commenters, but this was probably a case of "if I had more time, I would have written a shorter game." From conception to submission, this was two hours for me, my quickest composition yet.

I actually would like to play this one, but I'll have to wait for my kid to grow a bit. (She has a bear named Sleepy Bear though, so the seeds are planted.)

Congrats to everyone! Now to start our Get Out the Vote program.

Yogurt

Has voting dropped off, or has it always been this low?

I hope no competitors are deciding not to vote for strategic reasons. Technically, it's a shrewd move, because you deny your competitors 9 votes, but that's taking the competition too seriously.

I'm fine with the monthly schedule. It's become a guilty habit for me. I should be working on other projects, including this movie monster game I'm supposed to be working on right now, but I can't resist mulling the challenge over in my spare moments. And the number of submissions is strong, so I don't think the schedule 's a problem.

I suspect someone will suggest shorter entries. If this month wasn't an outlier, maybe we should try it once to see if shorter outlines attract more readers. I will cry though. :)

But if it's usually just the competitors who vote anyway, maybe we should just require votes from each person who submits a game.

Yogurt

Don't drop the monthliness! It's the only shining light in my otherwise dreary existence...

(did that work?)

I think requiring a vote makes perfect sense (if you don't vote, the votes you get are void). It's disappointing that not every entrant voted, but really I think a result based on 13 votes is pretty darn valid. Other than the fact that we all know any further votes that came in would've been #1 Ketchikan. It just makes sense!

My game:

I actually ended up making a Ketchikan prototype (each animal was a different shape of lego, so the stacking was easy!) and playing. Of course, we found changes we'd like to make. My wife felt like the Shaman cards just were too easy to forget (concentrating on exactly what moves you need to make on the totem poles is pretty intense! I pictured it being light and simple, but it's tough, kind of chess-like thinking ahead), and she proposed an alternate concept where each animal spirit has a special power, so rather than being rewarded a power whenever you choose not to use your spirit for building, you'd actually have a choice to make each turn: use the spirit's power, or use it to build.

I liked that idea, but I also like the Shaman cards. Incidentally, I did RESEARCH for this game! Almost every card came specifically from a Tlingit myth. I had some good flavor text in there that had to be excised.

We also decided you really needed to be able to move totems twice per turn, and the Beaver power/card would bump you up to 3 times.

I also think it might work well with only one Quest per player. As it was, it took a while to analyze each quest on the table and compare it to the totem poles and decide how do-able it was. On the other hand, with less, it would be much less likely that you'd make a 'combo'.

There was actually only one combo of more than 2 Quests in the game we played. My wife went off on a big rant about the whole spirit-collecting combo thing and how nobody would ever be able to accomplish one since you only get to put spirits on top of poles. Then her next turn she won the game by doing a combo using all 4 spirits. Besides the irony, that was the best part of the game. Cranking that combo out and getting more powerful with each step was a really cool thing.

This is my favorite of my entries for this contest, hence the prototype. And it really came out well as a solid, though non-kiddie, game in practice when we tried it.

As for other peoples' entries, I did my usual reviewing, so here it comes...

Caveat: I really REALLY don't know much about kids and how developed they are at different ages. I had to go with my gut on this (but I got input from my wife the elementary teacher when setting up the age range for my game, so you know it's solid!). Recaveat: after writing all this, I got my wife's general agreement on my age-range complaints, although she was WAY harsher than me! I'll spare you her commentary, save to say she thinks you need to keep things REAL simple (she likes simple games herself anyway, not being a geek).

Noah's Ark
Certainly is physically engaging! I think it has the same problem my first idea for this contest has: kids will slam into each other and end up bruised and battered. One thing I really don't like is that it has no victory condition (or way to lose), even for all players together. I know that's a kid thing, but hey, I don't like "games" that aren't games!

Barnyard Rush
Very very simple! I don't know what else to say. Seems like a nice simple strategy game. I almost think it's too strategic for the 6-year range it starts at. Of course, they could play it, but I think it might be frustrating for them to have to follow the rules. Especially if your pasture ends up with mud completely blocking it in, and when you draw a tile to fix that, you just get more mud!

Habitat
Wow, this entry is more in the vein of the 10-minute "come up with a basic concept" challenge than what we've seen so far in these week-long GDSes. As such, I struggle not to smack it down for being so unclear. It sounds like an interesting game, very Jengaesque. I have a feeling the whole metaphor involved will be flying through the stratosphere way above the heads of the kids who play it, but if it's mentioned, and maybe used in a classroom setting and discussed afterwards, it could be an actual lesson. It's definitely an interesting idea. In the end, I can't help but knock the vagueness - this idea could've been thought through more (or maybe simply expressed with more confidence!), as evidenced by the repeated lines like "I'll have to think about that more". That's my advice: just sound confident as though your game IS what you say it is, don't let us know that what you're telling us is just one of the dozens of potential directions you think it could go in.

Ketchikan
me!

Bug Collecting
I like this one. It sounds good for kids, though a bit 'meaningless' for us big kids, as it appears to be 99% luck. I have a feeling that in practice, the sticky spots would actually have to be velcro - sticky stuff doesn't stay sticky for long! I'd play it a couple times myself for the cuteness.

Stackanimals
This is a BIG game! I think kids would love it though. I think I would have a lot of fun too. It's awfully harsh for a 4 year old though - mess up your stack once and you go sit in the corner while everyone else plays? I think that rule would have to go right out the window if this were produced for real kids. Almost as absolute a loss would be to just lose all your animals and start building anew, but it would keep the kid playing and having fun.

Circle Of Life
This is good in two levels - I scoffed at the 5-year age rating when I read the list of animals, but the basic game is surely in reach of a 5 year old just fine. I would've liked to see an official ruleset involving the colors and stuff, but the idea that that at least gives it the potential to be an interesting adult game. I actually don't think I like the advanced game, I'd rather play the basic game with color rules and such. Again, like Habitat, I'm disappointed that this is left open instead of just taking a stand of some specific rules. Maybe I should just get used to that!

Farm Team
This one sounds like something kids would go nuts over, not to mention drive their parents nuts. One complaint here: fish must crawl on their BELLY with no hands? I'm exhausted just thinking about it. I question the intensity of the animal limitations... they should probably be toned down to a more general acting-like-the-animal thing (of course, too lenient would make the challenges super easy!). it would be interesting for something like a PE class to break kids into groups and have them all compete to win their set first. Would require tons of supervision to ensure the rules are at least vaguely being followed though.

Safari Party
I like it. Again I have a problem with the elimination aspect - for young kids, that's just a terrible idea. The trunk on the elephant seems like a major annoyance, but once I realized it wasn't a precision stacking thing and just a "stick it on and hope it stays" thing, that makes more sense. I was sitting there trying to visualize how they all stick together, it was tough.

Sleepy Bear
This game sounds kind of interesting with a few real grown-up elements (just the complexity of passing items to the right person and the various rules like bringing animals in with door dice). I don't think this cuts it for 6 year olds really. Too complicated! But for a slightly older crowd, they could indeed have fun. I don't know, I think it's at once very kiddy and very complex (for 6 year olds I mean... it's not exactly Lord Of The Rings), which are not two things that can mesh. I could really picture a simpler version where the kids themselves hide behind furniture (or in buckets!), and actually bring stuff to Sleepy Bear while he sleeps (and snores loudly!). I think that's the way to go with a game like this. Classic childhood type game - you're out if Sleepy Bear is awake when you are not hidden (yeah, it's brutal, and I've spoken out against it above, but it's how kids play! And it would be a very short game presumably).

Matching-Matching-Matching
I like this one. First it's very well-thought-out in a "child development" perspective, second it's very easy for kids to get, and third it is kind of interesting in a weird way. I like 'chains' as a general gameplay concept.

Lost In The Fog
I detect a language barrier here, and I think it made this already complex game seem harder to follow. There were a few rules here I just didn't get. The movement difference between #1/6 and the rest is that #1/6 can move diagonally, right? And when you move, you move one of your pieces 2 spaces (#1/6 can change direction after the first step), and one of them 1 space? Can the chain be diagonal? There's something in there about the end of your chain has to be the same number as the space its on? Or something... Overall, it sounds like an interesting game, pretty much a chess-alike (why is the board made of cards instead of a board?). I think it's actually a little complicated for ME to play, much less a kid, but I actually do think it would work with 8+ as it says. Maybe more like 9 or 10 before they really have an idea of what they're doing, kind of like chess (I myself am at the 9 year old level of chess).

Animal Parade
Interesting, and impressive that there are 3 versions to the game. I think the difference between the last two games isn't that big though, and in fact the middle game is plenty complicated as it is! I think it would be a worthwhile (light) adult game. Scranimals honestly sounds like a bad version to me, though. I think the kids would be bored and frustrated, as getting a match seems like it would take a while... and what if other players hold the part you're looking for?

Noah Zark
This is my favorite! I would really enjoy playing this game myself, and at the same time I also think (if you remove the Gadget cards entirely) it really is suitable for as young as 6. With the gadget cards, it's more complex. This game totally reminds me of Cooties. Remember that??

Monthly seems good. I voted (and participated) in the second and third GDS; after that, I went on a long holiday (without internet at all...), then I moved and had no internet (at all) and right now I have the shabbiest internet in existence due to a computer-accident and no money or time to fix all that...
(I realy, realy hated missing out on the showdown with the meeple/parts-requirements!!!!)

I did not vote this month because I could not decide between some of the games. (And I did not participate, because I couldn't find the time...) Count me back in next month (or the month after that)!

On a side note:
With this many entries of such high quality, maybe another way of point distribution should be considered. I often have a real hard time deciding how to vote. Distributing 10 points (or 15 or as many points as there are contestants) with a maximum of 5 points for one countestant and a minimum of 3 (or 5 or whatever) contestants that are awarded, would make it easier for me to vote, as I often have a hard time to decide which game I like better...
Of course, as we've had this discussion already and the GDS is liked as it is by most people, maybe we should not reopen that discussion now...

Responding to the voting issue: I usually vote, but I didn't this time, because I couldn't get through all 14 entries. I hate for you to have to limit the entries, but for voting purposes - I am more likely to vote if I only have to read 10 or less. Plus, fewer entries makes it easier to decide my top 3.

Thanks to everyone who voted for me- I was shocked to win with all of the other great entries.

I must shamefully admit I myself did not vote- not because of any strategy but because of a hellishly busy week. I think most non-voters are probably in my same situation and for that reason I don't like the forced vote idea.

It is hard to get through the entries, but limiting them to the first 10 seems like it would result in a mad dash to turn in anything just so you were sure you had the chance.

I like the fabulous prizes for voters idea :)

-Pickles

I think it's very important for people who submit to the Showdown to vote in the Showdown. You're asking other people to read and consider your work, and it's only fair to give others the same consideration.

There are going to be times when busy schedules make it impossible to vote, but nonethless I think there should be strong incentive to do the right thing.

My suggestion: Reserve the top three spots for people who voted. Showdown entrants who didn't vote would still be read and ranked by others, but they'd be capped at placing fourth, even if they had the most votes. Non-voters wouldn't lose out on any feedback, and could always tell themselves that they really won, but the headline would go to designers who were able to fully participate in the Showdown.

Yogurt