Comments on All that Glitters: A Game of Deception (Andy)

Comments on Originality

  1. very reminisant of wait wait don’t tell me
  2. I thought this game was really clever. Calling someone’s creative bluff is something that I’ve only really seen in Balderdash, which is itself quite different from this.
  3. Reminded me of charades - if I had to place it in a similar context as another game - but otherwise I thought this was very inventive.
  4. It was kind of like Charades, but with a twist.
  5. Amazing!

Comments on functional elements

  1. seemed to work - and you thought of little things like putting numbers on them and making lots of extras for repeatability
  2. The cards on the rings were great and worked fine…plus they were hand made which is always better.
  3. The game pieces worked well for what they were designed for.
  4. Loved the crazy pictures
  5. The card rings did the work and were easy to hide in the hand.

Comments on Complexity

  1. all about acting tricky
  2. Not “steps” of complexity, but a wide range of techniques someone could possibly use to make their description convincing.
  3. The strategy was completely dependent on the individuals’ ability to perform and convey their characters to the audience….is that even strategy?
  4. It all depended on how well you could convince people.
  5. Not much
  6. This game is definitely of the Mimicry/Paida type, all of the strategy lies in learning how to act and pretend on the spot well - and that is a never ending process of getting to perfection.

Comments on Intuitiveness/complexity ratio

  1. clear
  2. Made sense right away. Maybe a bit of clarification needed in regards to who gets points for what??
  3. It was a very simple, but interesting game.
  4. Very easy to understand and play

Comments on the Rules

  1. clear
  2. Can’t see any real holes in them. Simple, straight forward, involving gameplay.
  3. Fine. Maybe more rules clarifying how the cards are originally set up for each performing player as well as which points go to whom and when.
  4. The rules worked perfectly.
  5. Rules were clear
  6. A bit confusing as far as the scoring goes.

Comments on the Visual Design

  1. nice ring
  2. Hand-drawn cards and cartoons are always fun. These were also quite entertaining due to the choice of images that were used. Not exactly pretty…but perfectly suited for this game at least.
  3. The game pieces were very well designed and visually appealing.
  4. Andy is a very creative person when coming up with the visuals for his game.
  5. GOod

Comments on the adaptation of the proverb

  1. simple proverb and a fun simple game to match
  2. Having to weed out the empty “sales pitch” coincides well with the proverb and makes for great gameplay. Bravo.
  3. This was a little misleading in that the deception part was meant to be done by the players themselves…where as the proverb can also be interpreted as saying that material items aren’t always as valuable as they seem.
  4. The game displayed the meaning of the proverb in a great way.
  5. Somewhat captures the proverb. What it means to me is that things might not be as good as they seem.
  6. I think the game was on the right track, but not fully on. The winner is the one who is guessed right no matter if she is saying the truth or the lie. In the end it is just as rewarding to be very obviously truthful or over the top exaggerating when lying (adding glitter), while proverb seems to be more about finding that one piece of gold.

General Comments

  1. This game is fun - what adds the spark to it is seeing the pictures on the cards - maybe there is a way to make sharing them easier after each round
  2. Nice game card design. The re-order cards thing might confuse the players. How about the “performers” act as a team and strategy who lies, who performs from a branch of cards? So the you don’t have to worry about the “organized shuffle” and add more tactical skill in the game.
  3. I thought this game was a winner in its simplicity and involvement of everyone in the class. Seems like it’d be a great game to play at parties.
  4. As a performer this was a fun game. I wish I’d had more cards with actual images though! That would be my one main critique…cards with real pictures should be distributed more evenly among the three card stacks for the performers.
  5. I wish that there was a way that there wasn’t a limit to the different cards that players received, but other than that, I would love to play it again.
  6. I think that this would make a very good party game. It reminds me of something that would be on WHOS LINE IS IT ANYWAYS.
  7. The point scoring system needs work. Maybe the individual actors should just be on one team and the guessers on the other… and points scored on the basis of who is correct.
  8. loved it, it was clever and witty. the only (mini) problem was that some people recognized the photos. but its ok. cuz those were great photos! i also liked the lamination
  9. This would be a great party/evening with friends game. It certainly is a game about audience being tricked or not with each set of cards; it does not necessarily necessitate any scores/winner(s)/looser(s), which is refreshing but can also place it towards more of an organized play activity rather than a game.
  10. hilarious game, really got into my head. ┬áDidn’t really get the proverb, but it was a funny, and the groundwork for finding all of those pictures was great