Critique the Oct 2008 GDS Challenge Entries

Thanks for the nice comments and good feedback.

In reply to 3: The idea behind this is that they aren't your run of the mill dumb, predictable monsters; they're actually very intelligent like humans. Think of it this way; would you be more scared if the zombies you were surrounded by were slow and mindless, or if they were talking to each other about how to best catch you and tear you apart?

In reply to 6: I would definitely agree that I could've implemented this idea better. I'm a lot more of a video gamer and TCG gamer so I'm not so familiar with board games. This will, of course, improve in the future, however.

However, I strongly disagree that this game has low replayability. I think that your thinking behind this is that once you've mastered the game, it's pointless because it's too easy. But this game is designed to have several difficulty settings.

I completely agree that having two jargon names in the title was a bad decision. I'll avoid that in the future.

As for the Crystalmongers not being monstrous enough; as I mentioned in a different post, think of it this way: Would you be more scared if the zombies you were surrounded by were slow and mindless, or if they were talking to each other about how much your race deserves to perish and how they're going to tear you limb from limb? Several people were turned off by the fact that my monsters were intelligent. However, I think this is only due to people being used to seeing dumb, predictable monsters in all movies and most games.

Team Killdozer is basically the group who comes out after most of the military has been wiped out. They're meant to be an interesting yet comical alternative to marines or whatnot. I could see your point that it's strange that they're dumber than the monsters they're being attacked by, though.

This is a good couple comments here. I really had no idea how to write board game rules in a clear manner, but after all of the posts about it on bgdf I've got a much better idea. My rules will be written a lot clearer in my next game. Also, had I included a good image of my game board as I intended I think you would've gotten a much better idea of how the game is played.

In regards to, "are there any other types of structures or interactions that might make position important, or is it all just fighting? Where do the power-up equipment come from?", There would be buildings that would either be blocking terrain or would be able to be knocked down by using an action. Also, the power-ups come from various sources on the map. I was thinking there would be a junkyard that would have engines and stuff you could get to make your tank faster, and that their would be a military base that you could get better weapons from, etc. Obviously this stuff didn't make it in and yet I still went over 800 words. I've got a lot of work to do in order to get my word count down.

Thanks for the honest and useful feedback. Let me know if you have anything else you want to mention.

I'm glad you found my criticism helpful and constructive. These are good follow up questions.

This probably would make a good digital game, but I think it can work as a board game. I think the main difference is that keeping the enemy "AI" simple is important in a board game, as is minimizing math and bookkeeping.

If the Crystalmongers were greedily attacking humanity to raid our resources, that would probably be enough to make me sympathize with the gun nuts. My main problem was that these intelligent, civilized creatures seemed justified in attacking after humanity essentially ruined their world.

Sounds like you have good ideas for the individual tanks and power-ups. I like the idea of having distinct fighters and power-up grabbers. I'd like to see some power-ups that are best for a particular tank, but tempting for anyone to keep-- thus forcing players to decide between cooperating and improving their own tanks. But maybe that's just me.

I guess the main problem I see with combat is the damage. Tanks and the Overlord should probably be able to endure several hits, but I think it would simplify things if the small enemies died after one hit. The medium and large enemies would die after two hits: they could just be marked as "wounded" after one hit. To make tanks hit harder, you could allow them to make several attack rolls at once (so they could score more than one hit on a single enemy), or increase their odds of hitting with each roll (base attack number), or both.

Classic Battletech comes to mind as an example of a hex map game that fits this kind of tactical combat. It'd probably work fine with squares, but I just keep imagining hexes. Maybe because they seem more crystalline.

Just a bunch of my opinions. I hope something in there helps or gives you some good ideas!

Congratulations Dannorder!

And thanks to everyone for the great feedback so far! I've had some good reinforcement that I'm actually not looking at complete junk where the rules are concerned. This submission is based on a concept I've been trying to work into a game for some time now, but the sheer head-crushing depth of options represented in the vast array of animals that could be included (as DNA samples) has often overwhelmed me. That said, I would agree with this:

If "real life" had not demanded so much of my time during the submission week, I would've gone with something more akin to an Olympics concept, creating creatures to compete in non-combative events. I had completely forgotten about that earlier iteration of the game concept until after submissions were closed; I think it would've been a strong solution to the questionable treatment of animals (in multiple forms, no less).

I plan to continue working on this one, especially at taking it away from the combat side. I like the combat mechanic, so perhaps it will see use again in some other context. A bit of tweaking on the concept and thematic mechanics seems in order, however; I think it could be a fun little casual game with some retooling.

I agree that keeping the AI simple is very important with this game; that's why I only had 3 very simple rules for how to control the enemies. I think it works fairly well, but it still may seem a little bit too much like the players have to make the enemy's decisions. I've been wondering if this may work better as a 1 vs. many game such as Fury of Dracula. However, I think that if this simple AI idea did actually work, it would be pretty cool since it would be an entirely cooperative board game that would be against an enemy that seems like it follows the same rules of the game as you do (instead of just being something like a randomly flipped card that doesn't move around the board).

That's easy enough; just switch the greed from the humans over to the Crystalmongers. This is a great solution

Cool idea! Another idea I've been working on is a game that can be played either cooperatively or competitively; and that changes throughout the game based on the player's interactions with each other. In the case of Team Killdozer, maybe there's a healing item that would heal 2 damage on any tank, or 4 damage if a specific tank used it. This could also apply to tires, engines, weapons, etc.

This is all very interesting stuff. Any idea what would be a good way to mark the enemies as wounded? I was thinking maybe you could have separate pieces that snap on to the enemies that make them look bloody, but that would probably drive up the cost of the game too much.

I also like the idea of being able to take a bunch of shots as opposed to one, but having those shots being less likely to hit than if you were to take one shot (maybe I read what you said wrong; is this what you meant?).

I'll have to check out Battletech; I've never played that game. I went with squares with this game just because its combat system is heavily influenced by Heroclix (even though that isn't that great of a game). The hex map could definitely prove to be the better option.

Thanks for another very helpful response. You definitely gave me lots of ideas.

Id like to say i hate juding other peoples hard work so I tried to keep it light.

Entry #1 - Great Blobs of Fire!
=======================
As mentioned before, who doesn’t like blobs? I really like the idea here of expanding your blob as it rips through villages. My only concern here is the use of money in this type of game. It’s hard for me to role-play how a huge blob steals me money or I guess maybe it’s a pay off not to eat their village but what village has 20 million? Besides my hang up on the money I enjoyed the entry.

Entry #2 - Monsters of the Big House
=============================
I accepted the inmates as monsters right away but as others mentioned it would of been great to have classic monsters incarcerated. I’m not a huge fan of roll and move but I think you pulled it off well. One idea that came to me was to have players take on a role each turn and it passed it to the left, kind of like St. Petersburg. So each player is a Guard, Inmate, Executioner, or Warden. Each role has its own ways to score points. I’ve got quite a few ideas for this one but your more than welcome to tell me to go fly a kite! As mentioned before it could use some power ups.

Entry #3 - Ghost Trappers
================
I enjoyed this theme a lot and the game was presented well, but for me I felt it was missing something. I realize this game was probably the most polished but from the title we knew that we would be trapping ghosts and I was hoping you would throw a nice curve ball to the theme instead of straight down the middle. Don’t let my analogy fool you I enjoyed the game as is.

Entry #4 - Team Killdozer: Emergence of the Crystalmongers
======================================
First let me tell you how much I hate co-op games. I hate them. Unless they still allow me to make my own decisions on my turn without 4 other people telling what I should do, otherwise it just becomes a solitaire game. Don’t let my hang up fool you I think this has plenty of potential in avoiding that trap. It was hard for me to tell where exactly each Killdozer started on the board in relation to other players. Maybe if each player started on opposite sides and the Crystalmongers emerged from the center, that way we’d be working together just not making decisions side by side. I also like the idea of meeting another player on the board to trade power ups.

Entry #5 - The Haunting of Lower Thelwich
==========================
I really like this game. I did have a problem understanding if players had a hand of cards or not. The rules said draw a card when moving into a location, and if it matched the location the action occurred, if not put it in the queue. Later it mentions discarding cards to escape. Maybe I missed something. Turning into vampires is also another great feature, but I fear the king maker will be present in some games.

Entry #6 - DNeigh
=================

This idiot typed to many words and blew it!!!

Entry #7 - GeneArena
====================
This game was present very well, the cards alone looked amazing. If only I knew how to format my rules and present them as clean as yours. I think others mentioned making it just a CCG, while agree I also like the idea a CCG/Board combo. I think the arena idea suites the contest but a more detailed map with terrain and obstacles would make it even more dynamic. Either way it’s a solid submission.

Entry #8 - Monster Island
====================
This game is simple, clean and on point for the challenge. I think the core game is great but I’d really like to see the monster building mechanic used in a different way other than arena/island combat. I’m also late in my critique and I would like to congratulate you on your victory!

Seems like it would be easy enough to include optional rules for this-- one player could manage Crystalmonger movement and attacks, and you could add a few new maneuvers. I think the current AI works for a co-op game.

Glad you liked it! "Having ravaged Earth's interior, the Crystalmongers burst through the crust to exploit the resources of the surface, trampling mankind as they go..."

So the game could begin as co-op, but depending on what happens in the game, it could turn competitive, or teams could form, or there could be a co-op victory after all? Intriguing!

Yup! Help yourself a little now, or help the team a lot later?

If the game uses counters to represent units, they could simply be flipped from a "healthy" side to a "wounded" side. For miniatures, your snap-on wound idea is cool; putting a peg into a hole in the base would be another way to mark wounds, and that would allow you to easily mark several wounds for larger enemies.

That could be a cool power-up or tank ability, actually. But I was looking for ways to differentiate various tanks' potential damage output. For example, instead of "The powerful tank deals four damage, the fast tank deals two damage," you could say "The powerful tank attacks twice, the fast tank attacks once," and for a power-up, “+2 damage” could become “one extra attack.” This allows you less room to fine tune stats, but keeps the damage in scale with enemies that can only survive one or two damage. I was figuring the attacks would be restricted to a single target, but you might allow certain tanks or weapons to split the attacks between targets.