Hi everyone,
I'm new here and wanted feedback on a game that I've invented called Walled-In. Any advice greatly appreciated.
You can view it here: www.walled-in.com
I'm wanting to do a Kickstarter for it next year now and any help or guidance will help.:-)
Lee
 | Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (1) by questccg |
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (19) by larienna |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
Comments
Hmm... I can't reach your web
Hmm... I can't reach your web site, the connection timed out.
Needs work
I would find the game hard to learn from the written rules alone, despite the simplicity. I had to watch the video to understand. In particular I have no idea what "sacrifice any area to another player" means, nor what it would mean to "get away with it". I would suggest getting the rules re-written by somebody entirely new to the game because the current draft seems more like a reminder for those with an assumed familiarity with it. Trying to compress it all into two sides of one sheet is probably not helping.
The rules also lack any explanation of how a 3 or 4 player game differs from a 2 player. Presumably there is some determination of how many of the 36 black tiles are used and by whom but it's not currently there.
As far as the gameplay went on the video, it seemed to be very much lacking in any real decision making. Place walls in a way that doesn't set up a scoring opportunity. When it is impossible to do so, scoring becomes constant and every score sets up the opponent to score. The large 4-block spaces getting alternately filled in at the end highlight the lack of any ability to influence how that scoring plays out; it's very much just tediously filling in the spaces with no uncertainty or tension. This game would probably be quite easy to "solve" because there must be an optimum layout of walls in the early stage and then scoring is largely determined by player turn order. There's not the complexity of an abstract like chess or go, and there's not the uncertainty of any sort of luck beyond choice of start player. To win, an experienced player is going to depend on the luck of who goes first then hope their opponent's mind wanders.
Overall I got the sense that this is more an activity than a game. I could be completely wrong about that, but if you're relying on the current presentation to sell it as a strategy game, I think you'll be disappointed.
Time to be strict, sorry
@stevebarkeruk
You don't know this game? It exists for several decades that I know of. I played it as a little kid, over 25 years ago.
Maybe it is originated from somewhere where I live.
It can be done with a piece of paper and pen. And the size of the game can be huge.
But I agree with you, the game does need more work.
***
The strategy is simple with small fields. The bigger the field, the more strategy. You lay down traps as you go. You also count possible placements, just to make sure you get the upper hand and/or win the game in the end.
Goal of the game is obviously getting the most tiles.
Another possible goal by terms of variation, of the game is the opposite; getting the least of tiles.
Early victory brings in super careful planning and strategy to all players. Let's say, the first one to get 10 tiles wins. Can you see the potential in this?
Sure, it is filling up the sides as much as possible. And this takes time. But the end game is where the real thinking starts. Some plan ahead in the beginning already.
The strategy that some players put into this game rivals that of chess. I am sure of that!
I have 2 questions:
- Why a physical board?
Players who know this game will use pen and paper. And simply decide on the size of the game, depending on how much time they have to play it.
Further, paper is easy to bring along on trips. It can even be played in the back of the car. It is also easy to clean up and doesn't cost much money. Graph paper rules!
The physical pieces get lost in the long run. Eventually rendering the game incomplete to be played correctly.
- Why 36 fields?
Those who are familiar with the game. Know to use an uneven number of fields for 2 players. 5x5=25, 7x7=49, 5x7=35 etc. are common used numbers. 36 is way to even. It can create a tie with a high probability. An odd number of fields will create a winner every time.
If you are pulling hairs right now regarding this? The answer can be simple. Last tile doesn't count! :) There, that problem is solved.
***
When going into the Extreme (henceforth my name in any game)
As 11 year old kids, we played the game with 8 players. Having a field of 41x63 sure did a job on us :D.
It took us weeks to complete. And in the end, we only had 5 players left.