Please use this thread to post comments and critiques on the April 2010 Game Design Showdown entries.
seo
Critique the April 2010 GDS entries here!
Sun, 04/18/2010 - 16:16
Wed, 04/21/2010 - 03:16
#1
Votes
Hello everyone!!
I'm new to these forums, but I have been reading over previous entries the past few weeks and have been very interested in the ideas and critiques coming from the posts! I would like to vote in this month's competition! Here's my feedback:
--- Safety First! (1 vote) ---
- Overall Impression
This game makes me think of other memory games that I played as a kid. I actually really enjoyed such games because of the challenge of memorization. I think it would be good for a younger audience, who enjoys discovering what’s under the unknown cards and memorizing them rather than weighing decisions too heavily. However, the nature of the theme may not be appropriate for a younger audience, so it would be left to an older audience that has an appreciation for a game of chance, seeking and memorizing.
- Enjoyment Points
Game pieces are connected to distinct hazards and dangers All players are equally likely to win Players’ memory is tested
- Improvement Points
Very little decision making involved Accidents aren’t very distinct from hazards A lot of “luck of the draw” involved
--- Drunken Strippers Ahead (3 votes) ---
- Overall Impression
A very “Balderdash” kind of game which would allow for a lot of creativity and could be potentially hilarious, especially at parties! It is always interesting to see what your friends will come up with, and the rules are very simple. I really like it and might even play it with my friends some time!
- Enjoyment Points
Would be great fun with a group of creative people with a good sense of humor. Requires only about 1 minute to explain.
- Improvement Points
You might see a lot of repetition in the answers, especially after multiple plays. If the players don’t “get it”, it could leave some people feeling unsatisfied.
--- The Facility (2 votes) ---
- Overall Impression
I think that this game would be fun for a younger audience who are looking to add a bit of light decision-making into their gaming experiences. There is high potential for “you have that, but I have this!” moments within this game. The player not knowing the location of the secret items, and having to escape with them at the end, leads to some good tension.
- Enjoyment Points
Asymmetric gaming gives players a different experience as they play a different role the next time they play. Trying to outdo each other on traps and immunities can lead to some AHA! Moments Suspenseful tension between the players at all times, especially towards the end. The cards look great! Well done!
- Improvement Points
Searching results are random based on dice, and cannot be strategically altered by the player. There is no decision-making for the robot when choosing which trap to play: he will obviously choose the one which the humans in the room have the least immunity to.
--- Conquest of Sector 74 (0 votes) ---
I must admit, I found the instructions for this game a bit unclear. For example, you write "At the beginning of the turn players draw a hand of five tiles." But tiles have not been mentioned previously. I assumed you meant cards, but then again, from which deck? You then write "If a mystery card is drawn it’s effects are applied to a random player," but what is a "mystery card"? There is no mention of it previously. Because I was not able to clearly understand how this game would play, I am unable to evaluation it fairly.
--- Pantomime-onium (3 votes) ---
- Overall Impression
This game has the potential to be very funny, and could be used as a good ice-breaker to loosen people up a bit. Nothing makes people feel more at ease with each other than having to make silly sounds or act out charades, because they spend more time watching other people be silly, and are encouraged to be so themselves on their turn.
- Enjoyment Points
Anyone trying to win will have fun guessing and making noises/actions. Both the guessers and the performer are rewarded, especially a good performer. Great for few or many players (though probably best for around 6-8).
- Improvement Points
Many icons are so similar it might be very difficult to guess, even with a good performer.
--- Bad Guys Businesses (1 Vote) ---
- Overall Impression
After reading the first few paragraphs, and looking at the game board, I was very interested in this game. The particular layout of safety and hazards looked quite clever. However, the gameplay, and the way in which a turn is executed, was so in-specifically explained that I wouldn't really be sure what to do. For example, how exactly do I pay a bribe, and what effect does it have? Also, this might be my misunderstanding, but it seems as if which safeties and hazards to choose are more just random guesses than anything else, as there is no way to strategically decide which ones should and should not be chosen. The game may involve too much micro-management for my liking, though I would have to play to affirm that.
- Enjoyment Points
Having all players play at the same time sounds like it could be a very interesting mechanic for this game. The layout of the gameboard, and the usage of the theme, show a lot of promise.
- Improvement Points
Clarification of the rules and specifications would certainly be necessary to play this game. Game might not involve enough informed decision making: all decisions seem equally valid with no advantage or disadvantage. May be too heavily micro-managed for the average player.
Fri, 04/23/2010 - 19:06
#2
Comments for April
Congratulations to Dave! And of course everyone else who participated. This was my first attempt at the GDS. I had been meaning to enter many, many times in the past, but this month's challenge was such a good one that I could resist no longer!
Here are my comments on this month's entries
Safety First
In spite of the archaic roll-to-move mechanics, which I will discuss later, I think this one shows a lot of promise. It’s a lot like the traditional memory game, except there are multiple “memory fields,” each in a separate location. This introduces player movement and travel time. I also appreciate that players are searching for a specific set of tiles, not just matches.
One thing I would think about changing is the movement mechanic. What if each assembly area was inside a “region”? Movement could simply be from one region to the next. So, I could move from Door Install to Engine Install in one move because their regions are adjacent. It would take me three moves to move from Door Install to Air Bag Install (have to pass through Brake Testing and Acceleration Testing on the way). The number of moves a person has per turn can be a set number or variable.
One way of using a variable movement mechanic that I think it would be cool is to have a hand of movement cards. Each card allows between one (common) and four (rare) moves. You can only play one per turn, but this way you can save up your long range movements to bolt across the factory floor once something you’re really looking for pops up.
I would also suggest adding player mats for each game piece so players can reference and keep track of which tiles they need to complete their sets.
Drunken Strippers Ahead
This sounds like a fun party game. One thing that immediately pops to mind is that, within a group of people, the funny/intelligent ones would probable do best and the boring, unimaginative people would have a hard time catching up. Of course, the fun in this game is in the playing, not the winning.
Perhaps instead of, or in addition to, the Chooser’s one bonus vote, he could have a special “good effort” token to cast on the phrase of his choice (but not the one he voted for). These tokens would sort of end up like a badge of shame I guess, but maybe you could do something within the rules for the player who earned the most of these tokens by the end of the game.
I understand the choice number cards, but I can’t help but think that they are unnecessary. I think you could do away with them. Simply have the Chooser put the slip of paper on the table after he has read a phrase, and then when during voting, players cast their chip directly onto the slip of paper. I think this would also add the communal feel of the game.
The Facility - This one was my game.
Conquest of Sector 74
I like the theme of Conquest. It reminded me a lot of the 1981 animated movie “Heavy Metal.” I think a sci-fi game about brewing is great and could be a lot of fun. But I have a few issues with the game rules.
I have a lot of problems with the randomizer deck. From what I can tell, it acts as a random player picker and also as a discard pile for players who cannot play a required day or night card. It is made from five cards from each player, which seems like a like a lot of cards. If you don’t encounter a ton of mystery cards, you may never get through the initial portion of the randomizer pile within the span of a game. This means discarding to the bottom of the pile would have no effect since, aside from the initial shuffle during game set up, this randomizer pile is never shuffled. Also, because the regular game cards are used to construct the randomizer pile, you could end up getting if good cards end up there instead of the common draw pile.
One part of the rules that was unclear to me was the discarding to the randomizer pile if a player cannot play a day/night card during the day/night phases. The rules say “excess cards are discarded to the bottom of the randomizer deck.” How many cards do you discard and where do these discards come from? If these discards come from you hand, players can effectively alter the randomness of the randomizer pile by discarding cards belonging to a specific player (that is, if the pile were shuffled regularly). But since the mystery events are going to be good or bad, this point seems moot. If the mystery events were predominantly good, I would always try to discard my own cards to the randomizer pile to increase my chances and the opposite goes if the mystery events were predominantly bad.
Since the common deck is comprised of all players’ cards, can you play cards onto your own board that belong to other players? Can you play cards onto other players’ boards? Does the border color only matter within the randomizer pile?
Also, some cards have higher values than others, and some even have negative values. This means a player will always want to play the highest value cards onto his own board and never want to play negative value cards (unless he can play them on his opponent). Unless there are specific reasons to play negative value cards (for instance, if you are required to play a day card during the day phase if you have one in your hand), I would just hold onto them until I could discard them into the randomizer pile.
Other parts of the rules that were unclear were the different types of cards in relation to the different areas on the board. I know each card states where you must play it, but is there an overall goal? Do you have to play at least one machinery, one ingredients, and one finished product card in each area? Or do you jut have to make it through the common deck, playing the highest value cards you can, until the game is over?
Basically, you have a knock-out theme going, but the mechanics need a lot more thought. I bet with a lot of play testing, this one could turn out pretty well.
Pantomime-onium
Here is another great party game in the vein of Pictionary and Charades. Game play-wise and mechanics-wise, Pantomime-onium introduces nothing new, but because it relies on these well-tested foundations, the game ends up being solid and with little need for play testing.
The I only made notes on two parts of the rules. I wonder if the 30-second time limit is too short. Maybe it could be increased to 45 seconds or one minute. But that could easily be determined through a little play testing so it really isn’t an issue. The other part was the special movement. I really like this mechanic a lot. The only thing I was wondering about is if the move back five spaces penalty for incorrectly guessing is too harsh. Again, this one could be hammered out with a little testing.
Overall, I think this could be an interesting and fun party game. It doesn’t require much more work at all to be a finished game.
Bad Guy Businesses
It was a little difficult for me to grasp this game at first, but after really reading through the entry, I think I’ve got the overall idea. Once per turn, you can cover up one of your liabilities with an earnings token, support an organization (if you have enough liabilities in that category covered), or bribe that category. If you draw a card that shows a liability that you are not covering, you get hit with fines. If you’re bribing that category, you don’t have to pay as much. I like the main mechanic of this game. There is a risk factor. You can cover an entire category with a bribe, but if you draw a Justice Department card, you get hit hard.
As the game progresses, it gets easier. Once a particular inspection has passed, everyone knows that it will never come back up. They can then move their earnings tokens to other liabilities. I don’t know if this is by intentional design or not, but it could mean that during the last few rounds of the game, nothing much changes.
I couldn’t understand the cash flow aspect of the game. It’s not really covered in the rules. How is cash flow different from earnings tokens? Is this an entirely separate game mechanic? And if so, why does it require so much math? Can it be replaced by paper money/tokens/poker chips?
Fri, 04/23/2010 - 20:01
#3
The value of theme and image
First things first, thank you all for your reviews and your votes. I'll do my critique now and address your feedback later, just in case someone else chips in.
From the moment I went over the posts, I knew Drunken Strippers would win. Maybe I shoud have read The Facility more into detail, as it didn't finish that far behind. I only voted a (+3) for Drunken Strippers so maybe my vote was more decisive than I thought (yeah, just 3 votes out of 10 looks lazy, but is hard enough for my mononeuronical brain).
Anyway, I always analyze games from the point of view of the casual gamer. They are, in my country, about 95% of the market share. So I need to pay attention to them.
Drunken Strippers has an appealing title for a party game. How many teenagers/20s wouldn't want drunken strippers in their party? I can so picture American Pie target here. Brilliant.
Plus, you have a neat visual reference (the DS icon) that matches the game title perfectly. I can imagine even the Drunken Strippers Fan microbadge in BGG. Great.
There is no way that I, as a costumer, would be making a hardcore in depth critique like the ones usually posted in the GDS posts. So, my voting will maybe remind us some other aspects of the decision making process of our customers.
Did I ever tell you about when I decided to produce a tic-tac-toe game and I consulted with a games designer? I'll post the story and the resulting 10 pages rulebook in my blog someday.
Thanks again posters, reviewers, voters, etc for your support.
Keep thinking!
Sat, 04/24/2010 - 00:53
#4
My reviews
Safety First! (1 point)
Decent idea for a game. Seems to work well with the mechanism. I guess I had two problems with it. It did seem like a lot of luck, and I’m not sure how strong the “memory” factor is. Are there enough tiles being picked up that people will have trouble remembering that their tile is in the Engine Install room? Also, for a game about safety, there really don’t feel like very many dangers. What if hitting an accident caused you to lose cards? What else could you do to bump up the danger & intensity level?
Drunken Strippers Ahead (5 points)
This is a wonderful idea for a game. I love the pictures that you give as examples. I’m wondering how attached you are to the game ending mechanisms though. I had sort of wondered if it would be better as an indefinite game, where you play until a certain player gets X points. Also, what is the advantage to having players draw some cards but not play all of them? Also, I worry slightly about the replay value, would this game get old after a while (with the same jokes always coming up)?
The Facility (4 points)
I really like the theme, and would be interested in trying it. Reading it, it’s not immediately obvious whether the game is balanced. Also, I’m confused what a “locked” room is. Does it only mean that the robot cannot play a trap there? Or does it mean a human can’t enter it.
Conquest of Sector 74
I’m not quite sure what the strategy is here, besides trying to convince your opponents not to play negative cards on you. It seems like it’s all luck.
Bad Guy Business
Interesting idea. It seems really math heavy, which might be a problem. Also, when is there positive cash flow in the game? It seems like all of it either flows out through bribes or flows out because of supporting things. Also, I can’t quite see the benefit in anything other than buying all of the safety things you can right away, supporting organizations, and letting the cash roll in.
Sat, 04/24/2010 - 11:40
#5
My feedback
Thanks for all the thoughtful and useful feedback here. Here are my comments on the entries:
Entry #1: Safety First
I like how you categorized the icons - the safety gear vs. the hazards, vs the dangers with red on them, vs. the accidents. That was a clever use of the source material. The game itself seems like it would be fun, but I think a lot of it would be luck-based and thus might frustrate more sophisticated players. You have die rolls for movement, the chance placement of the cards at the start, which could be near or far, and the wild cards and halt work cards that are found at random, all of which are outside the players' control. Late in the game, once the players know where most of the cards are, the Halt Work card would be a huge advantage. I think it might make for a better game if the players could interact more - as it stands now, the only interaction is really just watching and remembering what cards the other players turn up - otherwise, it could be played solo without much difference from a multi-player game.
Entry #2: Drunken Strippers Ahead
This was my entry.
Entry #3: The Facility
I've always liked this kind of two-player duel game with unequal sides. I like the backstory, too, with the abandoned robotics factory - there's some potential for really cool art there, and I really like the art you created for the sample cards - giving the hazards names is lots of fun. One problem I had with the design was visualizing how it all was laid out - you refer to map tiles and locked and unlocked rooms and items without describing how these work. Obviously, it's hard to describe all of that in 800 words. At the end, unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems like you'd need to add a rule whereby the human player can't add any more pawns - otherwise, the human can just keep adding pieces until he or she wins. But a neat idea, and a fun use of the source icons.
Entry #4: Conquest of Sector 74
I love the setting here - alien brewmasters - lots of fun. The variety of cards is interesting. I think it would be fun, although I have a little trouble figuring out how it would go. Are you allowed to play your cards on other people's boards? It seems like that would have to be the case for the negative numbers. It also seems like the multipliers would be hugely valuable. The game seems like it would play out in a way that's very luck-based (whether you draw the high value cards, whether you're able to fill all your spaces) and without much interaction between the players, unless you can play bad cards on others. Like Entry #1, I think adding more ways for players to interact would make for a much more fun game. I had a couple of rules questions - I wasn't clear on whether you could stack cards in an area, or whether you replaced them when new ingredients were drawn. Also, you mention special events cards at one point, but if I'm reading it right, they're never included or mentioned later.
Entry #5: Pantomime-onium
This one was a party game, like mine, but it would play out in a much different way. I like the mechanic of having the mat of icons with people voting with their pawns. It seems like you could save yourself a lot of production costs without hampering the game much if you were willing to use a common mat for all players. You'd lose the secrecy factor, but you'd avoid having to print up most of the mats and all of the screens. In terms of gameplay, I'd think some of the cards would be far easier to act out than others, even completely obvious in the hands of a skilled actor, so you'd want to choose them carefully. The added (and clever) complication of the sound vs. action die roll makes that more varied. I think the Special rule is too extreme - on one turn, you're moving as much as five turns, and if somebody got that a couple times in a row, the rest of the turns would make nearly no difference to the outcome. I think this would be a lot of fun, though - the accidents would be fun to act out, and the sound-only ones would be particularly interesting and funny to see.
Entry #6: Bad Guys Business
I like the board art and layout - I love how you've matched each problem with a remedy, and also used the common icons for the organizations.. I had a little trouble following the rules, since they use terms (e.g. cashflow, organization, costs, fines) without defining them. Some of them can be figured out from the board image, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me what the rules were talking about. I think how it goes is kind of like inverse roulette, in a way - you make bets to cover the risks, and the fewer bets you're willing to place, the more your potential proceeds are. I like the interaction between the bets and the bribes. I didn't take the time to do all the math, but I imagine it would be pretty easy to figure out an optimal play strategy after a couple of plays (that might vary a bit with the number of players, since there are cards whose rules require you to pay everybody else or collect from everybody else). I worry also that the scoring would be a little painstaking, having to count up all the Earnings chips - this is something that might work better as an online game, where the scores and effects would be calculated automatically. It's a clever design, a neat use of the source material, and I think it would be fun to play.
Sat, 04/24/2010 - 14:30
#6
Its more a simulation than a game
Well, everyone, thanks for your interesting reviews on Bad Guys Businesses.
First, I will like to address the randomness issue you have pointed out. Once you have your mind set on a strategy, you'll be covering your costs as chosen, and then what? Just hope for the best? Well, not exactly.
Picture this as a print and play game. You will print as many player sheets as required and then the players may make a mark next to each liability that comes up from the cards deck (I added this as a hint in the final Optional Rule). So, say in an 4 players game, you won't have more than 4 cards for a particular liability (there is 1 card per liability per player). Meaning that if 4 times that particular card has shown up, then there is no point in keep covering that particular liability any longer. Meanwhile, you are sorting your risks out.
Scoring: Once you get to draw a card, you calculate its effects, and then add the number of current earnings to your previous earnings on your cashflow. At first, you'll be adding over 10 earnings per turn, but this may decrease in the later turns as you get chewed by your costs. So, adding +4, +5 or +6 to your cashflow result is not too complicate a scoring mechanism. It just looks like much math because I named the scoring point table “cashflow”, and your victory points as “earnings”.
The game lasts 25 rounds because things get different if you are playing for the inmediate short run profits, or for the mid term, or in the long term.
In terms of the best strategy, you don't need to play the game. I'll tell you how it ends.
Big “Briber” player almost always wins with 2 to 4 players. Not covering any liability, just the bribes, lets you score big time in the short run. The drawback is, you'll be hit by the Feds an in the last turns you could be even loosing money with barely enough chips to pay the bribes and make a minimum profit. So, you'll be appointed the new Corporate Chairman after running your bussines almost into bankrupcy. He is the short term sure winner.
The second profile I have is the “Absent” manager type. This guy just doesn't place any tokens in the board. He pays the fines, but his business can afford it in the short and mid term. No innovation, no new markets, no “kaizen”. Just milking the cow for as long as you can. This guy – belive it or not – usually goes second. But he has less than half his starting bussiness at the end of the game, and in a steady road to extinction. He is the short-mid term sure winner.
The third profile is the “Micro-manager” player. His commitment to doing the right thing is just instrumental. He'll cover three liabilities just to be able to comply with the organizations and gain some market share through them. He may even pay some bribes until he gets his liabilies covered. He usually ends up in a third place. He is the long-mid term sure winner.
The last profile is the “Swiss” manager. He just does the right thing. No bribes, all liabilities covered, all organizations supported. His earnings are minimum at first but he gains market share on the long run. Even if he ends up last in the challenge, his business in one of the largest (he has more earning tokens in his player board). If a simple game could represent all the effects of the long run, he would be the long term sure winner.
Another (sidetracked) profiles is the “Copycat”, but as his strategies bounce around during the game, his chances of doing something meaningfull are scarce.
How do you see yourself fitting in these cathegories?
a) I never do things how they are supposed to be done
b) If it's not broken, then, don't fix it
c) If I'm lucky enought, I can make it
d) I don't expect miracles, I'll just do what I have to
e) They are making money, let's do that ourselves!
Sorry about the long post (and misspelings, no dictionary installed). Keep thinking!
Sat, 04/24/2010 - 20:53
#7
My Votes
Here were my votes and feedback (Quite different from the actual results):
Safety First – 2 Votes
It is a good game with simple rules that is more complex and strategic than the classic memory game on which the mechanics are based.
One thing that was confusing when reading the rules that I think I figured out by looking at the board is the placement of the cards on the board. From what the rules say, each player is given a set of Hazard and Danger cards corresponding to their token, and then matching cards are place randomly on the board. At first I was confused as there will be many more cards than available spots on the board, and if you stack cards on each location, then anyone with a card at the bottom of the stack will be at a huge disadvantage.
However, I counted the number of boxes in each location and came up with 62 spots. In a six player game, with the all the Accident, Halt Work, and Safety Zone cards in play, there are exactly 62. I’m sure that wasn’t a coincidence, and if each box was big enough to hold it’s own card, that would be a huge game board, so I am assuming that smaller tiles are placed on the board to match up with the larger cards that each player has.
When fewer than 6 people play, how do you handle the distribution of the tiles on the board as there will be empty spots?
When a Hazard or Danger token is revealed that the player needs, he remove it from the board and matches it with his card. What about the accident tokens and Halt Work? Are they also removed when discovered, or are they flipped back over for other people with poor memory to find?
I would have given more votes for a more innovative moving technique than just rolling dice. Also, it would have been nice to have each player token have unique abilities and disadvantages to give more variety to the game play.
Drunken Strippers Ahead – 0 Votes
This game is way too close to Apples to Apples, except instead of improving on that game, I feel the game play isn’t as good. In Apples to Apples, the active player chooses one winner amongst all the submissions. In this game, the active player has to assign each entry a number and then everyone votes on one of those numbers and you have to tally the vote. This takes a lot more work for the same result. The rules say that you can not vote for your own entry, but I don’t know how to enforce that unless people reveal which ones were theirs. Once you do that, people will start to be able to identify hand writing and will stop voting for the person in the lead.
The Facility – 2 Votes
I like the theme, and I like the adversarial play style. I like having pawns with differing abilities, but I don’t understand how they would be effective. If a soldier is immune to robot drone traps, then as the robot player, I would just not play those traps on a soldier. If the traps came up randomly, then that special ability might be more useful, but if the robot player is holding a hand of cards, then it seems less likely to be effective.
Also, I know the limitations of word count and such on the design of the game, but I would have liked to see a picture of the game board and an example of how the human player assembles the board. I am guessing there must be a reason the human player does it instead of the robot player, since it is a robot factory, but I’d like to know what that is.
Also, once you get into exit mode, it seems way too hard to escape. The secret items will be held by two different pawns, and while they will each have an immunity, they will not have the same immunity so the robot player is guaranteed to draw a trap card that will stop at least one of them.
Conquest of Sector 74 – 1 Vote
The theme seems very forced on this game. With some of the other entries, I imagine that it would feel very much like I was walking around a factory, but I don’t think in this game I would actively imagine that I was on another planet brewing beverages for a chance at the most Zanthyde.
That being said, the game play itself looks very reasonable. You try to play good cards on yourself, and bad cards on others. And when you play the bad cards, you should only do so in areas where they already have cards or else you might help them complete their board.
However, the card play instructions did not seem complete. If a player does not have day cards to play, then they discard excess cards. What is excess? Does that mean if a player has 4 day time cards, then there will be 4 rounds of playing day time cards, and all other players will play or discard 4 times? Are mystery cards always good? It seems like a penalty to have to discard to the bottom of the randomizer pile, because those are negative cards that you can not play on others, but if it means that your color will come up more frequently than others, when determining who gets the bonus from the mystery cards, it seems like a bonus unless the mystery cards are bad too. How many mystery cards are there? Also, since everyone has the same deck of cards, other than the 5 random cards that are dealt to the randomizer, and no one will ever have to discard a day time card, everyone’s board will have almost the same day time cards. If there was a way to mix that up to add differing strategies to each player, it would add more replay ability to the game.
Pantomime-onium – 2 Votes
This feels like a combination of charades and balderdash and it improves on both. I don’t know about the theme, and I would leave this game as theme-less, as I think the enjoyment comes from deciphering the noises and actions and not from imagining that you are running out of a wing-ding factory. Maybe a game board with dangerous icons that you appear to be running through and around as you move toward the exit would be enough.
Other than that, there isn’t a lot of criticism. There may be a problem toward the end of the game when someone is very close to winning and it is their turn. If they do a really good job of describing their icon and you know everyone could guess it right, but that would make the active player win, then people will guess wrong on purpose. The person in the lead still has the chance to guess other people correctly and win, but with the ability to sabotage the leader like that, you might get a very closely packed group at the finish line and no one will want to vote correctly for fear have having someone else win. Balderdash avoids that problem by having you vote on anonymous submissions. It’s obviously impossible to make the submissions anonymous in this game, but you may want to think of a way around that.
Bad Guys Businesses – 3 Votes
I like this game. It is original and does look like it would play very quickly. I don’t think that a 25 round game will only take 10 minutes per player (24 seconds a turn), but it won’t be too much longer. It would actually much shorter if you didn’t have to write your earnings down each turn. You did not specify the winning criteria, but I assume it is the company with the most earnings at the end of the game. If the amount of tokens in your earning’s square represent your total number of earnings, then why do you have to write it down each turn? Shouldn’t it just be that the player with the most tokens in their earnings at the end wins? Or do you total the earnings of each round to find the winner?
Also, there seems to be a huge disadvantage to going first. If you go fifth then you will have had 5 chances to cover up liabilities before you have to draw a card, but going first you will only have one liability covered and are sure to take a bigger hit than the fifth player. You might want to have the players start with additional tokens inverse of their turn order to make it fair.
