 |
|
Mar 4th, 2010 at 17:19:13 - Apples to Apples (Other) |
Playing the game for additional time provided some more insight into the game play.
Apples to Apples is very much a social game. The interaction between the judge and players is crucial to game play. However, the interaction between all of the players is what makes the game fun. Laughing together at the submissions and the noun/adjective combinations was the best part of playing the game.
Because of this, a computer version of this game would not have the same value as the physical game. Evidently, a computer version of this game exits, but I have not played it. However, I feel that the game is largely fun because of the social interaction between the players and this would be diminished or lost in a digital version.
For us, winning the game was actually not that important. When we played again, we didn't even stop the game once one of the players reached the necessary number of card to win. Instead, we just kept playing and several of the players ended up with large stacks of green cards. For us, the actual game play was what was fun and not the goal of beating the other players.
The game does not really show emergent complexity. There really is not much skill to the game. Much of the game is luck and depends on what you have in your hand and what card the judge selects from the deck. The only amount of skill that one can use is how well you know the other players. For example, I had a card that I knew a certain player would probably choose regardless of what the adjective card was. I chose to save that card so that I could play it when that player became judge. Because of that, I was able to win that round.
One interesting part of gameplay that I noticed while we were playing the game was that the judging actually varied. At first, the judges tended to choose noun cards that were closely related to the adjective cards. After a while of playing, this began to change and judges started to choose the funnier card or the more ridiculous card even if one that was more appropriate existed.
In conclusion, Apples to Apples is a very entertaining and social game. It is a very easy game, but that does not detract from its enjoyment. I would play this again and would definitely recommend it to others.
This entry has been edited 3 times. It was last edited on Mar 4th, 2010 at 23:05:05.
add a comment  - read this GameLog  |
|
Mar 4th, 2010 at 16:19:19 - Apples to Apples (Other) |
For my second game analysis, I chose the card game Apples to Apples. There is a Wikipedia page for the game, but I will provide a quick overview of the game rules and gameplay.
Rules and Gameplay
There are two types of cards in the game that are colored either red or green. The red cards have a noun and a short description of that noun. The noun can include anything from a famous person, city, object, animal, etc. The green cards have an adjective and a few synonyms to help those who are not familiar with the word.
Image showing the stacks of red and green cards
There can be 4-10 players, and each player is dealt 7 of the red cards. For each round, there is a judge who picks up a green card and reads the card to the other players. The other players must then choose a red card from their hand that they believe fits the adjective on the green card. Once everyone has given a card to the judge, the judge shuffles the cards and selects the card that they feel best fits the adjective. The player whose card is chosen gets the green card. Play continues with the next person clockwise becoming the judge. The players who submitted a red card are allowed to get another red card so that they keep 7 in their hand. The game is won once one of the players collects a certain number of green cards. That number is dependent on the number of players playing.
Image showing a green card and the cards submitted by the players to the judge.
Analysis
Apples to Apples is a very easy game to play and is very easy to understand. The rules are very simple and can be explained to new users quickly unlike some other board games or card games I've played. Some of those games require you to constantly reference the instructions, and sometimes you actually have to play through it once before you actually understand what the directions meant. That is definitely not the case with Apples to Apples.
Even though Apples to Apples is an easy game to play, it does not mean that it isn't fun. The game is actually a very entertaining card game to play and especially with people that you know. The game has won several awards and deservedly so.
Much of the entertainment derives from the combinations of adjectives and nouns that result from the players' submissions. For example, the image above shows somebody who submitted "My Bedroom" for the adjective "Spooky". For us, probably the most laughs resulted because of funny combinations.
With a smaller number of players, we actually found it more entertaining for the judge to read aloud all of the cards instead of just the winning card. Many times while we played, the judge would read each card with maybe a small critique and end with the winning card. It even helped build anticipation for the other players when they realize their card hadn't been read yet and that they might win that round.
Unlike some other games, there is very little cause of frustration that results from playing the game. One of the things that could be considered frustrating was when a judge had to choose between really good cards or when a judge had really bad submissions and had to choose the card that was the least terrible. Another small cause of frustration was when you had a really good submission and was sure to win, yet someone else had submitted a card that was even better. For example, surely "Bon-Bons" would win for "Appetizing". Unfortunately, someone else had "Lobster" to play. However, these things are many times part of the fun, and if you're going to actually get frustrated in these situations, you probably couldn't enjoy any kind of game.
This entry has been edited 3 times. It was last edited on Mar 4th, 2010 at 22:48:32.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Jan 28th, 2010 at 17:51:23 - Stackus (Other) |
2nd Session__________________________________________________________________
I played the game further and completed more stages. I also allowed a couple of friends to play the game on separate occasions. This brought up an interesting user interface issue as both of my friends had difficulty with a certain control that the game uses. Instead of using a standard button for selecting the stage, advancing after finishing a stage, etc., they use a control that is modeled after the control used by Apple to unlock the iPhone. It is a button that you slide over to activate instead of clicking. Both of my friends tried several times to simply click the control and I had to explain how the control worked. However, the control is actually used in a convenient manner after a stage is complete. You can slide the button to the left to return to the stage selection screen or you can slide the button to the right to advance to the next stage.
Some interesting complexity to the game became more apparent as I played more stages. At first, you are more concerned in how you stack the blocks on the right side of the playing area. However, on certain stages you have to be very concerned with which blocks you drag over first. Removing a single block from the left side could cause an instability that causes other blocks to fall off the screen.
Because the game is simply a physics simulator, there is actually a very open amount of playing choices. I am fairly certain that I solved several stages in a manner that was not originally planned by the stage designers. As long as you can get blocks to not fall off the screen, it really doesn't matter how a level is completed.
I was also able to take advantage of some of the characteristics of the physics simulation. For example, I could place a block slightly over an already placed block to get it to shift over which was actually useful in completing certain stages.
There were several interesting stages that I completed that had a large gap between the platforms. I basically had to bridge the gap by quickly placing two or more blocks in a way that they jammed against each other.
An example where blocks must be jammed together to prevent them from falling through
The game is entertaining and challenging, and I do want to finish all of the stages. However, I don't really think that it has much in terms of replay value. Once I am finished, I doubt I will have any desire to play any of the levels I've already completed. I suppose some of the levels could present a new challenge in trying to complete them in a different manner than I had originally completed them, but I don't think that will be enough for me personally.
This entry has been edited 2 times. It was last edited on Jan 28th, 2010 at 23:07:52.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Jan 28th, 2010 at 11:20:31 - Stackus (Other) |
I chose to critique the iPhone game Stackus. I was interested in how the developer handled the limited but also unique input methods available to the platform. For a future game, this could be useful if I'm in a group that chooses to develop a game for the Google Android.
Stackus is a physics puzzle game. The screen is divided into two halves with the left side having a slighly darker background. The player is required to move multiple blocks so that all of the blocks are located on the right side and do not fall out of the right side before a timer counts down to zero. Different immovable platforms are located on either side on which to stack the blocks.
Screenshot of game
The game is simple to understand and play. It takes advantage of the touch screen on the iPhone so the player simply uses their finger to drag the blocks around. However, this can cause problems as your finger can get in the way when trying to move blocks. This is especially annoying when you are trying to move a smaller block and need to place it with a lot of precision. When you are stacking the blocks fairly high, you need to make sure the blocks are centered or it could cause your whole stack to fall.
While the game is easy to play, it does provide a challenge. The game has 50 stages and increase in difficulty as the stages get higher. The first stages are extremely easy and require the player to simply drag large square blocks and stack them on fairly large platforms. However, the game quickly adds more difficulty through several methods.
One method is varying the shape of the blocks. There are square blocks, triangular blocks, and round blocks. The blocks also vary in size and length or width. The different shapes and sizes require the user to plan how they want to stack the blocks. The round blocks in particular can cause difficulty as you have to make sure they are on a level surface or have something blocking them from rolling off the screen. If you use the smaller blocks as the base, you will likely create a stack that is unstable.
Another method is varying the weight of the blocks. They did a good job of giving the player visual cues regarding the weight of a block by giving the heavier blocks a darker color. The weight of the block becomes important in stacking the blocks. If a player puts a heavy block off-center, the whole stack can topple. If a player puts heavy blocks higher on the stack, it can cause the stack to be more unstable. Likewise, if a player puts blocks lower in the stack, the stack tends to be more stable.
Another method was to vary the platforms on the left or right on which the player can stack blocks. For me, some of the most challenging levels were ones where you had very small and sparse platforms on which to stack.
So while the game seems simple and easy at the beginning, there is definitely an emergent complexity as you progress through the game. Sometimes you have to be fairly creative in how you stack the blocks in order to create a stable stack.
The game gives a nice feeling of accomplishment. It's nice enough to see the timer count down and reach zero especially when your stack is on the verge of collapse. However, they add a few more little things to help the feeling. A different little jazz tune is played depending on whether you complete the level or fail. Also, in the background is the face of a character who watches as you move the blocks around. The eyes of the character actually follow a block as you drag it from one side to the other. When the timer starts to count down, the character also watches the timer with a look of trepidation and either reacts with glee if you fail or sadness if you win. The character is a nice subtle addition which does not cause a distraction when playing the game. It also makes you want to beat the level even more when you fail so that you can get back at the character for laughing at you.
Screenshot showing the character watching the timer
Screenshot showing the disappointed background character
Probably one of the nicest things for keeping me happy when playing the game is that I am not required to play each stage sequentially. The last ten stages are locked and I'm guessing I have to finish the other forty stages to unlock them. However, I can choose to play any of the other forty stages that I desire. This is very nice when I reach a stage that I am unable to complete. If I was required to finish the stage before continuing, I would probably get very frustrated with the game.
This entry has been edited 5 times. It was last edited on Jan 28th, 2010 at 11:43:39.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
|
 |
| vanderz's GameLogs |
|
vanderz has been with GameLog for 14 years, 3 months, and 4 days |
view feed xml
|
| Entries written to date: 4 |
|
