- I found this game to be very confusing at first; I spent probably around 20 or 30 minutes just trying to get past the first part of the game. I eventually gave up and looked up the first hint. After that I caught on quick and didn’t need any more hints, after seeing the idea behind the game. After finishing the game I played it about 5 more times, I really love the idea behind the game and the structure of play. It was unlike any game I have ever played. It was heavily text-based, but not in a sense that there was lot of text, but that the way you figure out and play the game is through combining various words to make your character interact with it’s environment. Overall I loved the word-puzzle style of game play and have already recommended lots of friends to play it
- The way “Today I Die” uses text is very different than text used in any other game I’ve seen. In this game the text is actually a part of the game, an object that you interact with, to change the words in a poem that progresses the story onwards. I love the idea and would love to see it integrated in other games.
- One good argument from the critics on Corvus Elrod’s site was that the game didn’t communicate the different stages of the game very well (particularly the first and second stage). Which I agree with because getting past the first stage was the only difficulty I had. Although Corvus’s response was equally as valid, as he states that the critics are assuming that “Today I Die” is a goal-oriented game. When in fact there is no way to fail. The critics suggested that maybe hints should be given upon failure to complete a round. Corvus also states “Don’t read it like a game, Play it like a poem,” which I think is great advice to anyone who is about to play the game. Maybe that should be a line at the beginning of the game.
- If my group were to apply similar game mechanics, it would drastically altar our game. I’m not exactly sure how it would work without entirely changing the structure of our game, but I think if we could pull it off it would be a fantastic game.
@font-face { font-family: “Cambria”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
The game style my group got was turn-based strategy. Making a turn based game? That’s easy enough, but giving the game a sense of strategy was one of the hardest parts. For it to be a strategy game people need a sense of choice, risk, and punishment and gratification for taking those risks. One good idea we got to fix that was to have the players draw 7 cards at time and be able to look at those cards. The first main problem, obviously, was the fact that we missed so many classes due to holidays and snow days, that really through us through a loop having not met for several weeks at a time. But right from the beginning my group agreed that we wanted a game that was different than most card games, a game that was more physically engaging, using the cards in different ways. Although we struggled figuring out what that physical aspect should be, changing the target from the UNO box to a box on a piece of paper. From doing project #1 and starting to work on #2, one constantly very challenging aspect is making the game the perfect amount of difficulty, so that it doesn’t take too long or to short to play a whole game. I think a very good aspect of our game is that it is very easy to learn how to play, with very little actual rules to learn. Overall I think my group did very well as a team, as well as other groups’ critiques, all contributing valuable advice and ideas.
