Comments for Lips Sink Ships (Monica)

Comments on Originality

  1. A very Nice twist on team battle ship with the multiplayer aspect
  2. Good job, Monica!
  3. Most intriguing game i saw for this assignment! Good combination of mental ability as well as hand-eye coordination. The set-up was very unique as well.
  4. It was a little too much like a reenvisioning of Battleship.
  5. Almost like battleship, but you can protect your ship.
  6. At first the game seemed like good old battleship, but once I read the rules it turned out to be the inverse of battleship (with a spy and pirate twist) which is very new to me!
  7. Vagggggguely battleship, but this game literally tested skills i’ve never used before. Having to speak out loud and still be covert was a great challenge.

Comments on functional elements

  1. good scrims - a few points to improve: pins stick out the back = not too good
  2. You could see where the other team punches the hole.
  3. Very well put together. My only comment was to make sure platforms are thick enough such that peg placement doesn’t give away their exact location to other players who can see where the pegs’ ends stick out. That’s it!
  4. Everything worked very well.
  5. the board could be a little bit thicker so that the other players (once they get good at it) wont be able to see where you put the pins.
  6. The game pieces worked out pretty well! The only concern I have is that the pins can be seen from the other side. May it be better to use small pegs that you put in into pre-drilled holes?
  7. kinda off becuase you could see where your opponenets stuck their pins through

Comments on Complexity

  1. lots of room for improvisation between teammates and the complexity of doing two things at once was a great touch, also loved the pirates!
  2. Quite a lot. Good job.
  3. There was a good amount of strategy involved within the communication aspect of the game between teammates and their opponents. It would have been interesting to see if different codes could be worked out between players to use during game play.
  4. It had a lot of different ways in which you could try to trick and sway the other team.
  5. There is definitely some room to figure out how to talk to your partner, or if you should just listen to the other team and not try to put in your pegs? Or if you should do it half and half? Or if you and your partner should try to quickly devise a language on the go?
  6. All sorts of different ways you could code your hints. I don’t even understand the best way to do it yet.

Comments on Intuitiveness/complexity ratio

  1. almost perfect
  2. Very intuitive.
  3. Made sense basically right away.
  4. It took a little while to understand, but was easy after.
  5. The game may seem confusing on the first glance, but after four seconds of playing it becomes very intuitive.

Comments on the Rules

  1. prone to cheating (through gestures) - is there a way to make cheating harder?
  2. Good rules except for the fact that it was too confusing when both teams are talking at once. Perhaps each team should go once per turn?
  3. Rules were fine. The only thing i was unsure about was the rules concerning the pirates!
  4. The rules worked well.
  5. I like the pirates.
  6. Maybe allow a little time for players to decide on some sort of code? But this also could ruin the game.

Comments on the Visual Design

  1. I wish you had drawn your own ships , especially considering you have atalent for drawing
  2. I like it.
  3. The idea was good and the background image worked. Could have been more interesting if the ships had been drawn by hand? I still enjoyed this game visually despite this small detail.
  4. It looked nice.
  5. The gameboard was nice…where’s waldo?
  6. The game design worked pretty well! Waldo is a good choice of background map as it is an overwhelmingly full of objects. However, the theme of Waldo does not not necessarily go with lips, ships, or pirates. I wonder if there are Waldo drawings or any other kind of drawings that would be more appropriate?
  7. A little cutty-and-pastey, but the use of where’s waldo was smarttt.

Comments on the adaptation of the proverb

  1. You did a really really good job here to riff on the idea of watching what you say and listening as well. One of the best adaptations weve seen all week
  2. Very good idea.
  3. It was a clever way of incorporating the literal aspect of the proverb - sinking ships - with a more abstract approach to what ‘loose lips’ are…in this case a careless slip of information based on two teammates communicating.
  4. It was a very nice use of the meaning of the proverb.
  5. Loose lips do think ships! Proverb was certainly the driving point behind the gameplay (if one of the teams chose to just listen and not talk at all, the proverb would be 120% in there).
  6. Nearly exactly. Players had to watch what they said, but also became “spies” in a sense trying to overhear the others. Great!

Genral Comments

  1. This game is very fun to play- wish the time limit was shorter as it did take a while, also perhaps there was some more things for the pirates to do?
  2. I’m glad that you simplified the game (compared to the last one) and it works really well with that special “Monica style” that you add on.
  3. The best part was developing a sort of system with your partner improvisation style. Because no one had properly prepared any kinds of codes, we would just use part sign language, part sound effects to try and make any sense at all.
  4. It was fun the first time, but I don’t see myself playing it again.
  5. I thought this game was very fun. Not too much that you could change to make it even better.
  6. I really like how dynamic the game was - a lot of real-time action packed into 5 minutes of game! However, I feel like the role of the pirates has to be revised, as it seemed that it’s not too hard to avoid three chosen words (unless of course you choose “ummm”, “a”, “the” as the words).
  7. Your games are consistently original and fun. Right on.
  8. Fun game, but we didnt get to use the pirates, and the rules for predicting what your opponents do could be clearer or easier