I put together a how to play video a while back for a simple card game I designed. But then, I went to Honduras and disappeared from the internet for about a year. So, I never got any feedback on the game.
If you have 3 minutes, check out the video and let me know:
1. Does the game makes sense?
2. Do you understand how to play?
3. How does the game look?
4. Would you want to play this game?
Yes this video is very comprehensible.
Yes this video does a good job of depicting how to play the game.
One thing I would aesthetically change is the BLACK BORDER around each building and make the "Residential", "Industrial" and "Commercial" icons LARGER. They look a little small and after watching the video, I could not tell the BLUE "Residential" from the green background.
And my other suggestion would be to use a lighter color of green (for the background of the cards).
This is a trick question! :P I think the game looks FUN. But I'm not sure about "replayability". This is more like a Card game such as UNO. But some people LOVE playing the game over and over... So I don't want to sound discouraging in any way.
The color/type over the others is very COOL. And the "Municipal" buildings behave like "blockers" (you can't place any card on top).
Maybe you could EXPLORE another LAYER: Population. "Residential" zone may have ONE (1) Occupant (1 Wooden Cube - matching color), "Industrial" zone may have two (2) and "Commercial" zone may have three. This is just a FLASH idea - I got right now.
Kind of like Houses and Hotels in Monopoly, but this is a Population...
Not sure HOW you could include this... But it maybe (like I said) ANOTHER LAYER you can ADD to the game (Worker Placement mechanic).
And you could have a rule that ONLY cards that are "surrounded" (for lack of a better term now) can have Population tokens. How this AFFECTS scoring, IDK. It's your game - this was just an idea to add a Worker Placement Mechanic! :)
Cheers.
Maybe EACH CARD has OCCUPANTS when the game starts.
When you match that card (put on top), you collect the marker. And you could have 3 colors. One color = 1 point, another = 2 points and last = 3 points.
Instead of scoring according to the type of building...
Just IDEAS - I'm not at all telling you to change your game. Things that are coming to mind after reading and watching the video...
The Marker are TYPES of People:
And these People move around the board - to score points. And maybe have a WORK WEEK, some people are OFF and at HOME on the weekend, others can work on the weekend (like a Clerk or Cashier).
Again just some "worker placement" ideas - to add another LAYER. The ideas are FREE - feel free to ignore or investigate them further...
Like IF you have an EVENT like a "SALE", you NEED a "Clerk" + "Cashier". And you can have 2 people score X points EACH. To have more of a crowd you need a "Police Officer" and then you can have 4 people who can score a point. So you would have an EVENT deck and you would try to satisfy the EVENT by placing the RIGHT Marker(s).
You can have a FIRE and people at a location and all die UNLESS a Fireman shows up... Or you can have BANK, Store Robbery ("Banker" or "Cashier") and to prevent it you would need a "Police Officer"...
Just some additions into where I was going with this specific idea...
Yes all very clear and concise. I like the look of the game, and see how the streets create the "links" between cards in your ever-expanding metropolis...a nice touch to tie all the cards together.
It's a very simple game, and that can be good for many. I do like Kris's (QuestCCG) idea of adding a little worker placement or something extra to the game to make it more "thinky;" the thing with games like UNO is that they're appeal is the speed of play, and your game doesn't look like a "speed" game.
I think something small could be integrated which would pull in more experienced gamers, but not absolutely necessary, and overall I think it's a great little game!
How many cards in the deck, by the way? I think you could get away with just one card explaining the property values, or one per player, instead of the 3 properties/3 values layout you have currently.
One last point of personal preference, your game is fun and friendly to kids as well as adults, so the name could be something that sounds more fun than "Prime Real Estate." Even the simple "For Sale" has kind of a fun ring to it, and speaks to the mechanics of the game. Something like "Urban Sprawl," taking from the way the cards fan out as players expand their city.
@chris_mancini
I really like the titles "For Sale" and "Urban Sprawl" but did you realize that those names were already taken by some fairly popular games?
Any other ideas for names?
Take it while it available: "Cosmopolitan".
It's sort of what you are trying to do with the "language"-aspect and making it open to all kinds of culture because there is no language barrier!
Sounds cool to me...
Of course I know there is a Magazine by that name - but no games...
Or "Cosmo City".
Looks good.
I`m slightly worried about the almost perfect information though.
One thing to consider - to have player colors secret.
That would eliminate the "optimal move" problem (as long as at least one color is dummy).
At least until the point where you've managed to figure out which color your opponent is playing.
"For Sale" was a popular existing point of reference I was aware of; I didn't know about "Urban Sprawl," but that's the style of name I think would work for your game. Nothing outright wrong with "Prime Real Estate," just doesn't sound as light and fun as your game appears to be.
Your "Mayor" idea sounds cool; something small, but perhaps players can move him to affect the city as it's built.
@EIKobold
That's a really good point. One of the issues I've run into in play testing is that sometimes a player will basically hold the game hostage to count up the points to figure out where the perfect place to put a card is.
Having player colors be secret would probably help deter this type of behavior.
Or what about having secret scoring cards that give bonuses for certain things?
For instance, you get 10 extra points if you have 5 skyscrapers showing at the end of the game.
@chris_mancini
If I made the standard way to play a variant and went with the alternate way to play instead, I could call the game "Land Grab."
I think that title would fit the mechanic of the game.
1) I can't get youtube due to limited internet access so no.
2) "
3) No idea :(
4) I'd do (almost) anything once and if it hurt I might try it again :P
reading the comments other people who have seen the video have posted though, I'd be far more inclined to try this game.
Video was quite clear, though the out of focus moments was a little disturbing. Assuming you're using automatic settings on your camera, then more light would give you a longer focal length (because it means it uses a smaller part of the lens, and the middle of a lens is more perfect than the edges).
I'd give it a try. However, my issue with the game is that it looks like it is purely tactics and no strategy. Given any particular hand and board, there is probably a single best move that everyone would agree on (eventually), so the only skill involved is spotting that best move.
I would prefer a game that has more decision tension. Do I make this big points play right now, or make a strategic play that is fewer points but will enable me to make bigger points in the future? That sort of issue.
Thank you all for the feedback.
Hey Gabe here are a few more names for you:
Prime 'Hoods
Boomin' Burghs (Burgs)
Stacked Cities
StackVille
Personally I like the sound of "Boomin' Burghs" as it describes how players together build a city over the course of the game...and the name sounds fun!
The more I think of it, the more this game really could use another layer to go from good to great...and I really think this could be a great family game. Something that interweaves throughout the game, makes more sense to me than something you do after the city is built.
Lots of great ideas have already been offered, and for my line of thinking, the small size should remain without a lot of added pieces both for simplicity and cost. Even a single meeple with a great mechanic that moves around the city could be...the mayor sounded like a logical choice; what other archetypes make sense?
Does each person have their own piece to move around the ever-growing city? Is each thematic? Mayor, Doctor, Police Chief, District Attorney, City Architect...Town Idiot???
Does the placement of these pieces add a layer of strategy when deciding where to play your next card? Do they offer bonuses/negatives when placed in certain areas of the city?
Are there different dynamics between these archetypes, leading to player "role" interactions? (The Doctor can improve a hospital and increase its value if the City Architect is on the same card, etc.)
OR does it play off of the streets which grow longer over the course of the game; do you move vehicles around on these streets? Could be role-based too; Mayor's Sedan, Police Car, Ambulance, etc.? Point being, it plays naturally into an element of the cards which had cleverly (but without in-game consequence) tied the city cards together. Players may drive these around the "board" as it grows...sounds interesting!
You've got a working game as it is. I'd love to see another level though...why not push it?
It was very clear and interesting. It does seem the scoring would feel heavy and anti-climactic.
With a strong domino feel maybe Domino City for a name.
Here's an example of a city-builder with simple population/energy mechanics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UpfkUohOYs
Quite different from your game, but it maintains a pretty simple foundation while offering more player choice and strategy. Building types having advantages when placed next to other building types, etc.
I hadn't seen this game till today, but coincidentally, take note of the "Architect & Urbanist" mechanics. This is very much like I was thinking for your Mayor, or a range of character types which each have a unique function within the city.
@chris_mancini
I really appreciate the ideas.
Last night, my wife and I played the game with a new scoring system:
There are 2 ways to score points.
The main way is to have clusters of buildings in your color. If you have 2 buildings right next to each other you get a point. 3 buildings get you 2 points. 4 buildings get you 4 points. And on up with a sliding scale.
The other way to score points is based on a hidden role card you receive at the beginning of the game. You get points based on having your buildings directly next to a specific building. For instance, the player with the Mayor role scores a point for each building in their color next to a municipal building. The player with the Environmentalist role scores a point for each building in their color next to a park. And so on and so forth. There would be 5 roles in total.
During the two games we played, I noticed that the game is now a little more tactical than it was and plays more like a puzzle than it did before as you try to figure out how to make larger clusters of buildings while also blocking your opponent.
To help avoid analysis paralysis, each player now only has 2 cards in their hand which helped limit decisions to a more manageable number.
The games each took about 20 minutes to play, so even though the game is a tactical puzzle, I don't think it overstays its welcome.
My wife won the first game 21-16 and I won the second game 19-11.
I'll hopefully be able to play a few more games with the new rules soon.
Thoughts on the new scoring rules?
I think those sound much more digestible because there is a quick visual assessment rather than an item by item accounting.
I definitely like the new rules. You might even expand on the cluster scoring, giving even more weight to larger clusters.
Another possibility is that each of your buildings scores a point for each other of your buildings that it touches. So a chain of 3 buildings is 4 points (the two on the edge each score a point, the one in the middle scores two points). However, a triangle of 3 buildings (where each touch the other two) scores 6 points. This would mean that two clusters connected by a chain would not be significantly more points than two clusters that are not connected, which may or may not be the right effect.
Another idea I meant to suggest earlier. Rather than starting your turn by drawing a card, you should end your turn that way. This means that I have my complete hand to look at and plan for while my opponents are playing. It isn't fundamentally different, it just makes the game a little faster.
That's exactly what players do in "Tradewars - Homeworld". It means that even though you watch what is happening on the other players' turns, you also know what cards you have in your hand and can start to think about what role you are going to choose and what cards you may play.
Of course since it is not your turn, one of the other player's turns may alter your decision and force you to re-think your turn. This also is possible.
But this generally a good way to keep players engaged in the game even when it is not their turn.
The scoring we used yesterday for the clusters was this:
2 buildings =1
3=2
4=4
5=6
6=8
7=10
8=12
9=14
10+=Win automatically
That seemed to make scores fairly balanced.
I totally agree that drawing a card at the end of the turn is the way to go. We did that last night, and it definitely sped the game up. There were still times when one of us mulled over the best place to play a card, but this was usually when my wife screwed up my perfect plan with her card placement and I had to figure out something else.
I just had another idea for scoring.
What if each player receives a hidden role and scores based on which role it is, but all players score points for the "mayor" for having buildings in their color next to city buildings.
That would be 3 ways to score.
Clusters of buildings, hidden role, and mayor.
Thoughts?
I think you have to commit to what market/experience you are catering to. It has a lot of potential as a fast tactical gateway game, hidden roles could lose some of that (though could be a value add as an advanced version.)
Nothing wrong with delivering the option to go deeper with the individual roles...if you can diversify the gameplay simply with cards and a shift in the core mechanics, that could be a huge for a game like this.
It is very hard to balance when different players score differently. That's not to say that it's a bad idea, but it takes an order of magnitude more play-testing to see if it really works.
Those are good points.
Would any of you guys want to playtest the game?
I've got to update the cards to reflect the changes in the scoring system, but I can send games out from the Game Crafter once that's done.
If this was at my local game store it would definitely be an impulse buy if that is an indicator.
I like games like that.
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (19) by larienna |
 | Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (0) by Stormyknight1976 |
| 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 |
I originally designed the game with the intent of playing it on mission trips. I wanted something with UNO's depth but with a few more choices. I wanted to be able to play it in the airport or at the dinner table. I also wanted it to be language neutral, so people could potentially play it with non-English speakers.
The rules are even in English and Spanish.
However, I really appreciate the ideas on making the game a little deeper. Not sure I'll take it that direction, but I like the thought of specific "workers" that change point values.
What about having a Mayor token that can be moved to government buildings and it doubles the points of every building he's next to?
You're dead on about the art. The cards looked awesome on my computer screen but turned out much darker once the Game Crafter printed them. I had a friend update the art to remove the dark edges, but I think I would get him to redo the buildings entirely to make everything easier to see. The game struggles in low light.
There's 31 cards in the deck. 25 playable cards. 6 for scoring. Having the 6 different cards for scoring allows it to be random each game. Plus, because of how the Game Crafter charges for cards, having that many doesn't effect the price.
I'm open for other ideas on how to score though.
There's an alternate way to play that makes the game a whole lot faster.
See it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V3-P7jjChk
Would it be better to make this the standard way to play?
I really appreciate all of the feedback!