[GDS] FEBRUARY 2014 "From Nothing, Something" - Critiques

Loved this game and i was away from a computer yesterday so I could not give my review. I would sit and play this game with my boys age 7 and 15. Simple enough with the right amount of strategy to make it replayable and fun! Great job!!

This game made my top three. Loved the concept of building a tower. I could see playing this game with my kids. The choice of blocks and then building them has all kinds of life lessons built in along with the stategy. great job!!

Duplicate post

A thin theme is nothing special, but okay. The game fulfills all requirements of the challenge. A little secrecy in the beginning was driven in in a complicated manner. Didn't fancy keeping my finger long time on a button. Yet, want to see played, on a video, perhaps?

As I said in my earlier critiques, I took the criteria for this month's contest quite literally especially based upon the comments and questions that were asked afterwards.

This game is interesting and I think if it was entered in a different contest or on its own I would consider it to have a very promising design, but based on the merits of this contest, I think it violated the basic contention of the showdown by using several components. Granted they were all one color but they have different names and different functions and just because they are all made of one substance does not make them a uniform component in the spirit of what was specified.

Ivory Tower did not earn my medal although I think it's a fine activity for the younger gaming crowd. There are a number of stacking games out there that all play the same way - stack objects as high as you can. This has the twist of the mind-game with bidding, but that seemed like an entirely separate concept to the "fun" of this game, which might do better to be focused on the building.

I also was a bit strict with my interpretation of the GDS requirements (my own entry as evidence), and while this did have parts made from one type of material, making the "shape" the differentiating factor and then giving those parts specific functions like "baseplate" and "measuring pillar" is like saying that all the resources in Agricola are the same - they're just shaped differently.

If you were to pursue this game, frankly why not? It's a good sell for spare blocks; I suggest getting rid of the bidding and add in some risky-advantage for using parts that are hard to stack. Perhaps make them bigger or maybe each type of part is worth points and you only score it once it's high enough.

This one came close to bronze. It is well inside the requirements. It just does not feel finished yet. When can I move some to the middle, can I do it until I win? I suggest to give every player one chance to draw up to 3 new M&M (and eat the ones discarded) and then compare scores. Give the winner one point (either write down, or remember) and continue. Everyone could start with one bag of M&M and when it is finished you reached your final score.

I liked the bidding mechanic and although I liked a second round (as in Catan), that particular mechanic could likely end up dropping spheres into the lap of the highest bidder because no one else wants them...

I was fine with shape being the defining factor of the pieces, but since you needed a 10 cm piece to determine who wins, they also differed in function, which meant -- for me -- it didn't meet the restrictions of the challenge.

One strong trend in modern games is that rules must be as short and clear as possible. This time rules are very short and I envy everybody who is able to compress information in a such clever way.

The bag could be classified as an extra component, but I define "one bag of m&m candy" as one unit.

M&M Poker will be great fun when you have been shipwrecked on a desert island and last bits of food are shared.

I wanna Play right now!!. Get the M&Ms. I would like to add the asking for more and discarding (eating) up to three M&Ms. Great concept, simple and ready to play!!

I liked the concept here, and it met the requirements. The game mechanics description were solid and complete, though needing a bit of a strategy discussion to highlight where the game is.

It isn't obvious that this will work. It is also possible that the fun is located three steps away from beginner mind. The moving column seems an impossible condition as the top has to be one of your tokens that hasn't been played. The game may also breakdown into an irrelevant or impossible RPS.

It sounds silly, because wouldn't everyone play their highest number. In fact if they do, what happens on a tie? Barring a tie, if you have the top number, you will have a place for it because the only way to win a column is by playing a number unique to your set. So columns will never move.

Setting aside the question of ties and non-moving columns... once you have experience in the game, I see strategy (of a vaguely rock, paper, scissors variety) where you are balancing when to play high and score a column with more mid level values in it. But until you have the perspective of that, the game could feel fairly irrelevant and you may never play it enough to get that appreciation.

A word about how the play strategy pans out would've been a good addition to the description.

I had to go back and reread this one because it sounded more fun today and it had to be a contender for a medal on my list. In rereading, I did find a couple of things that I think break the game. As the players randomly turn over numbers, it is quite likely that players will play the same numbers on occasion and there doesn't appear to be a way to resolve this in the rules. Perhaps in the case of highest number ties, the column should go to the next highest player. I'm not sure what I think of the turning over numbers to reveal what numbers are left. You call it a bluffing game, and though the rules don't demonstrate this, the name suggests that the players are maybe supposed to declare what token they are claiming to play? This would be better in my opinion if the players were forced to try and remember what players had played already . Good concept, reminds me of a simple trick-taking card game.

I have to agree with a lot of the other critiques...not only is it two different components, but the poker aspect requires privacy and bidding. Your design is a just a luck draw.

There were two aspects of this I did really like, though. 1) The color distribution would be different for each game, a really neat mechanic. 2) This would be an easily transportable game, or if you leave it at home you can just pick up a new set! You can play any time, any where, really, and for cheap. Always attractive!

Sure, the game could've used a little more detail in its pitch, but the fact it piqued my interest regardless was a good start. I was particularly interested by the fact the game used something you could potentially find in any home, but it received top marks in the components category of my judging for turning something edible into a game component. The sheer creativity and uniqueness in that alone is what eventually made me award my gold medal to this game. It was only when I started reading other comments that I really started wondering about the potential hygiene problem.

I think this game has a lot of potential, especially if the occasional blue M&M we get here is included in the "hand" schedule. It has a unique selling point in its components, easy rules and loads of people can play at the same table. When the components are eaten the game ends: an obvious end point for the game is built in.

Not every design needs lots of details and complicated sub-rules and this game was the perfect example. I felt this design in particular embraced the restrictions of the challenge and turned them into an asset instead of a hindrance.

Congrats to donut2099 for a job well done. :)

Love this game idea, particularly because of the unique game component chosen. The only obvious flaw here is that you would not want to eat the candies after they’ve been touched by multiple people and slid around a table. I think you need to add a maximum number of draws for each round; otherwise people will just keep going until they get 5 of a kind. Other than that it sounds like a fun way to divide up candies.