Skip to Content
 

Gizmo - My First

16 replies [Last post]
Tue, 02/17/2004 - 14:53
Sundog
Sundog's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/09/2008

I've wanted to post this for sometime. Hope I'm posting in the correct location. But I'm one day away from playtesting GIZMO with four workbuddies. I've run through the game and found some unbalanced areas during selfplay, but I'm sure future playtest will reveal the true identity & feel of this game.

Although I'm an avid game player/collector, I've always wanted to develop and finish a game concept. So, this should be considered my first game.

All opinions are welcome. And since I'm new here, advice on submission to GDW would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

See Public Journal for Sundog - Gizmo for more information.
http://home.midsouth.rr.com/sundog

Top
Tue, 02/17/2004 - 15:37
#1
FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Gizmo - My First

The graphics are extremely attractive -- nice work!

-- Matthew

Top
Tue, 02/17/2004 - 15:57
#2
phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
*Wow*

That's your prototype?!?!?!? I'm feeling inadequate right about now.

-Darke

Top
Tue, 02/17/2004 - 16:10
#3
Anonymous
Gizmo - My First

It would appear some of the administrators are suffering from "prototype envy". :lol:

Seriously, though, nice work. I've generally been told not to worry too much about the graphics, as generally the publisher will have his/her/its own preferred look, but it looks like you'll be bringing quite a bit to the table with regard to a finished-looking product. Here's hoping it plays as well as it looks!

Top
Tue, 02/17/2004 - 16:48
#4
Sundog
Sundog's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/09/2008
Gizmo - My First

MikeDew wrote:
Here's hoping it plays as well as it looks!

Me too, Mike. It will surely be a shame to have a nice looking set of cards with no playable rules to call home. But as I see it in my hypervisual mind, If the game doesn't work well; the graphics will motivate me to work through the problems. (And the game does have problems - but the concept keeps me comming back! :D

Thanks to all for the great responses! As I told prophx, I probably have the cart before the horse here. I'm really nervous about the game working! :?

I'll be happy to give all the info on how I did what I did to get here on GIZMO. Thanks

Top
Tue, 02/17/2004 - 18:08
#5
Anonymous
Gizmo - My First

Well, my philosophy has always been that the bits are hardware, and the rules are software, and you can always change the software. :wink: That's why I will sometimes by a game I know is so-so if the bits are nice...I figure I can rewrite the rules!

Top
Tue, 02/17/2004 - 19:33
#6
IngredientX
IngredientX's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Gizmo - My First

MikeDew wrote:
Well, my philosophy has always been that the bits are hardware, and the rules are software, and you can always change the software. :wink: That's why I will sometimes by a game I know is so-so if the bits are nice...I figure I can rewrite the rules!

Well... if the "hardware" is under your control, then that can change very easily also. I don't know about other designers, but the bits for my games change pretty wildly from playtest to playtest. As certain mechanics get phased out and others introduced, the components of my games will change (and hopefully, simplify).

So I tend to not put a lot of sweat into my prototypes. Enough to make them legible and distinctive, certainly. But why spend weeks on something that will just get nuked the next playtest?

I hope Sundog's game plays well, because I'd hate to see any of those beautiful bits go to waste! :)

Top
Wed, 02/18/2004 - 11:08
#7
Sundog
Sundog's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/09/2008
Gizmo - My First

Most of the graphics were preconceived. As finely tuned as it may appear graphically, it didn't take long to put the design in it's present condition. But I feel fairly confident that 95% of the graphics are sustainable (flexible) & can be tied to any ruleset with the same theme.

For me, It's always been the visual aspect of games that drew me in. My impulse buys were largely due to how a product looked - and I always want to put my best foot forward; and I think this is how I will always develop a game.

some years ago, I researched novel writing and read many books on authors and their approach. It was amazing to me how some would write as if they were going to press the next day; while others would scribble and outline ideas for months prior to actually sitting down.

So, I think personal preference is the common denominator here, but practicality & efficiency should never be ignored.

My 2 cents - Keith

Top
Wed, 02/18/2004 - 11:32
#8
IngredientX
IngredientX's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Gizmo - My First

Sundog wrote:
For me, It's always been the visual aspect of games that drew me in. My impulse buys were largely due to how a product looked - and I always want to put my best foot forward; and I think this is how I will always develop a game.

some years ago, I researched novel writing and read many books on authors and their approach. It was amazing to me how some would write as if they were going to press the next day; while others would scribble and outline ideas for months prior to actually sitting down.

So, I think personal preference is the common denominator here, but practicality & efficiency should never be ignored.

My 2 cents - Keith

Completely agreed. It looks like you're a person with strong artistic and visual skills. I, on the other hand, cannot draw a splotch. As a result, I tend to be more into mechanics than visuals; so when I design, I put more emphasis on gameplay than components. I suppose they're two ways of entering the same tunnel.

Top
Wed, 02/18/2004 - 13:10
#9
SVan
Offline
Joined: 10/02/2008
Gizmo - My First

Quote:
Completely agreed. It looks like you're a person with strong artistic and visual skills. I, on the other hand, cannot draw a splotch. As a result, I tend to be more into mechanics than visuals; so when I design, I put more emphasis on gameplay than components. I suppose they're two ways of entering the same tunnel.

I can't draw worth anything either, and am usually not very good at visualizing things. However when it comes to my games, I can visualize very well, even to the point that I can see the kind of components I want for the game.

Top
Wed, 02/18/2004 - 23:44
#10
Sundog
Sundog's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/09/2008
Gizmo - My First

I've finished the first version of the ruleset, and also updated the images of the game bits. The first playtest session has been postponed until Friday. :cry: But everyone is still enthusiastic about the session to come.

I've already had a couple comments on the ruleset, and should mension, images will accompany the rules for visual aid soon. I think this will be helpful, as explanations are sometimes hard to visualize.

I'll probably look into posting a PDF of the rules for download after the first ruleset revision. Also, if any of you are interested in playing GIZMO, I'll be making 10 more sets after the first revision. I would hate to send a game that didn't work.
It would probably be expecting a lot to ask those interested to download 10 sheets of cards (77 total cards) and then to cut them out. So, I'm planning to mail the prototypes out.

Anyways - hope you enjoy!
http://home.midsouth.rr.com/sundog

Top
Thu, 02/19/2004 - 12:42
#11
Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Gizmo - My First

I have to admit that I found the ruleset somewhat inconsistent at the moment; as someone who doesn't have the benefit of the designer explaining it, there are a few places where it doesn't hang together properly (are there four or five phases in a player's turn? etc.) and there are a lot of "short-cuts" which actually do need explaining (are Trade Block cards face-up or face-down?) Oh, and it doesn't say when or how the game actually ends!

The Special effects seem a little unbalanced (where have I heard that before? :)) (It seems to me that you added these later?)

But I can see what the game does, and it seems that there are some nice interactions between supply and demand without requiring too much book-keeping. I'll be interested to find out if it works in practise.

Top
Thu, 02/19/2004 - 14:54
#12
Sundog
Sundog's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/09/2008
Gizmo - My First

Thanks much for your comment! I did run back to reference the ruleset for each of your comments. All were covered except for the "game end condition" which I'll discover tomorrow during the first playtest - and add to the ruleset. Here goes:

Scurra wrote:
Are there four or five phases in a player's turn?
Five. A player may do some or all, but must do them in order.

Scurra wrote:
There are a lot of "short-cuts" which actually do need explaining
Please tell me which should be explained further. Keep in mind this is ruleset v1.0, and more detail will be added after playtesting starts.

Scurra wrote:
Are Trade Block cards face-up or face-down?
Face-up (Setup portion of ruleset). Although the part cards in the Market are face-down. (you don't really know what you're buying at the market!)

Scurra wrote:
The Special effects seem a little unbalanced (where have I heard that before? :)) (It seems to me that you added these later?)
Agreed, and yes they were. I hope to flesh them out a bit. The play of Specials will get alot of attention tomorrow. But I personally like that there are 4 effects per Special card.

Scurra wrote:
I'll be interested to find out if it works in practise.
Me too. and I'm nervous because the nice graphics have elevated the bar of expectation among the playtesters. Oh well, without seeming selfish, this was a project in self indulgence. This is the kind of game I'd want to play...

Much appreciation for your comments.

Top
Thu, 02/19/2004 - 20:04
#13
Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Gizmo - My First

Sundog wrote:

Scurra wrote:
Are there four or five phases in a player's turn?
Five. A player may do some or all, but must do them in order.

This is why I thought you'd added the "specials" later. The ruleset reads as though there were four phases, and then you added the fifth phase, because the fourth phase did seem to say "last phase", so it wasn't clear where the Special cards were played. If there are clearly five phases, this isn't a problem.

Sundog wrote:

Scurra wrote:
There are a lot of "short-cuts" which actually do need explaining
Please tell me which should be explained further. Keep in mind this is ruleset v1.0, and more detail will be added after playtesting starts.

Oh yes, I appreciate that. My early rulesets have lots of shortcuts in them too. What I have since discovered is that something that sounds really obvious is actually not obvious at all to people who are reading it who don't know the game. One example (from memory since I'm not looking at the ruleset right now) is that you say "shuffle them" but don't specify exactly what you shuffle. (I thought at one point that you shuffled the money cards into the market deck, but it doesn't work like that.)

One last comment is that I think the game would actually work better with counters for money instead of cards. For starters, it would reduce the card pool to 50 (where 55 is a good target number anyway) and it would also help to keep the resources clearly distinct. I realise that this isn't necessarily helpful for a prototype, it's just an observation.

Top
Thu, 02/19/2004 - 23:44
#14
Sundog
Sundog's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/09/2008
Gizmo - My First

Agreed, David! I see what you mean about the number of phases. The "Start Production" phase was previously 5th phase until I found a conflict with one of the special effects. Then I had to put "Play Special" in the 5th phase. I'll correct the ruleset promptly.

I'm always worried about striking a good balance when explaining anything by way of written text; not to be too wordy, and yet be as clear as possible. Not always an easy thing - especially when you know the game better than anyone, and sometime unintentionally assume the reader knows what you're talking about.

Great observations! I'll certainly keep in mind the use of token as money during playtest too.

Top
Fri, 02/20/2004 - 18:23
#15
Sundog
Sundog's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/09/2008
Gizmo - My First

Well... after the first playtest, I'm completely satisfied with the progress made. There were several bumps in the road (which I expected), but we quickly resolved each issue, made notes, and moved along with the game.

This session wasn't so much a ruleset test as it was a playability test. And I'm happy to say the game was playable in the one hand we played; which lasted about an hour. It should narrow to 30min. after everyone is comfortable with the rules.

The most enjoyable part for me though is that everyone is very anxious to play again!!! To me, this is the sign of a successful start.

I'll post details of the session as soon as the ruleset is revised.

Top
Mon, 02/23/2004 - 16:34
#16
Pt314
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Gizmo - My First

It looks like all you need to do is clarify your rules and mechanics, and then you can start mass-producing the thing.

When I am designing games though, I obsess over the rules and mechanics before I even try to make my game look good.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut