Critiques For part 1 and 2.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was suppose to critique every week. I thought I was suppose to critique them all in 1 post.

So I will do my critique for both weeks.

Week 1:


AntLion

Mechanics:

Dynamics:

Aesthetics:

Final Comment:
AntLion, originally a real time strategy game (RTS), was scaled down to a simple strategy game instead. I agree with the idea of making it a strategy board game instead of a RTS because I believe that a board game of this type of game will be much more fun than a RTS. RTS are usually for games that has a huge variety of teams and units; however, for this game, the units are limited to ants and antlions which doesn't give the player too many options. Hence, making it a board game is much more suitable. The game is interesting, but I think making it an educational game about antlion in a board game style interface will be very awkward because I cannot imagine in anyway how it could be educational when the ant is trying to run for their lives. The only way I can imagine it is if event cards comes into play and gives information of ants and antlions. However, the idea of having information cards popping up during a ant escaping game feels out of place itself.


Fins of Fury

Mechanics:

Dynamics:

Aesthetics:

Final Comment:
The most interesting aspect of this game is the fact that the fish or tadpole is evolving along your journey. If it gains ability through evolution, then I can't wait to try it to see what kind of new interesting abilities it would gain. From what I've heard, the manager plans to input weapons. This is both a good and bad idea because weapons can add or destroy the game itself. I rather have the tadpole learn new skills to fight or solve problems than giving it a grenade launcher. I hope the team can find a balance in the game so that the weapons doesn't destroy the character of the game.

Unless their original idea was comical, then by all means add as many silly things in as possible. I don't mind having some laughs on tadpoles shooting random things at other stuff.


Mizu

Mechanics:

Dynamics:

Aesthetics:

Final Comment:
Mizu, or water in English reminds me of a game call Dewy's Adventure that was recently released for Nintendo Wii. Infact, if I didn't know better, I'd thought it was the same game because the main character and enemies looks very identical. I like the concept of the game, and it sounds like they are planning to create the platforms Mario style. However, I was wondering if splash attack is all they are going to put inside the game. I would like some power-ups in the game, especially for a game about a character made of water. The ideas of power-ups should be unlimited as water can be in many forms and temperature to do different types of interesting abilities. What made the original Mario interesting was the challenging, yet dynamic platforms. What made the later Mario more interesting was the different interesting power-ups. I am almost sure that everyone who played all Mario games will never forget Raccoon and Frog Mario. I hope they follow these roots to make their game fun.


Testing 1…2…3…

Mechanics:

Dynamics:

Aesthetics:

Final Comment:
When I saw the presentation, I didn't really understand much about this game. It seems like it's just a game where you walk from room to room solving puzzles and killing things. They gave a lot of detail about what the character and stage would be like, but I couldn't grasp their concept or story behind their game. Hence, I can't remember anything special or important about the game itself. Why would you go from room to room solving puzzles? What are you doing there? And a lot of things that really should be there to drive my interest, but wasn't really there.




Week 2:


Food Fight:

Mechanics:

Dynamics:

Aesthetics:

Final Comment:
From what they described in their prototype, I didn't really understand how the game will be played. The idea and concept behind the game is very interesting and comical, but the gameplay seems frustrating. When I hear a game that's named 'Food Fight' I wouldn't expect something that's complicated. Instead, I would expect very simple and fun even if it is a battleship game. I think instead of focusing on how deep the mechanics will be, they should focus on how they want the user to play the game.


Drive Thru Tycoon:

Mechanics:

Dynamics:

Aesthetics:

Final Comment:
A tycoon game is always fun, but this tycoon game doesn't have enough tycoon characteristics to make it fun. Tycoon games are based on building and expanding to make money, but this game is about making money through repetitive tasks. This isn't what I expected when they named their game after Tycoon. I think they should change their game name as it is very misleading. This is more of the Diner game instead. I dislike their ways of forcing user to memorizing tasks. In games, memorizing should be fun, but what they showed us thus far seems like a chore instead. Maybe they should change it to recognizing patterns instead.


Circular Strife

Mechanics:

Dynamics:

Aesthetics:

Final Comment:
The concept of the game is very interesting. It sounds simple and fun because blowing things up for no reason is always fun! They didn't show or tell how this game will be challenging as players advance. The only thing I got was that the challenging part was the time trials. I would like to learn more about the game because right now the game sounds like something that you'd get bored after playing a few times, or even an hour or 2. I guess it's the addicting gameplay of placing bombs and being precise that will get players back into playing the game. I will need to see more to understand more about the game.