Ah a game that I enjoy without even having a map. Apples to Apples seems that its not fun without a map but after playing it for 10 minutes it got fun and I went playing 100 rounds.
Anyways I am here to review the game. Lets start with Gameplay.
Gameplay
The quality of this game this good. This game can really suck you into its gameplay and have you playing for hours having fun. Basically the game is based on the real game Apples to Apples. You get a hand of nouns. It can be a person like Micheal Jackson to a thing like an apple pie. The round starts with a judge who picks a green card. The green card is a adjective. Then players choose a card to play that matches with that adjective. It can make sense or no sense at all. I.E:ADJ:Awesome. Valoesdte plays the card Ninja. You can go for a long time playing this game although I have found that over time you will see alot of the same card which can cause you to lose intrest in the game.
Presentation
Well I really cant give this a low number since the game only uses around 4-5 icons in the game. The presentation is fun but I would like to see in the future a better interface. Maybe add a map and have characters walk around. (Kind of like DM).I am changing my choice from 9/10 to 6/10 after reading a comment. I agree with him.
Originality
Well this game is based off of the real card game so I cant give this a 10. I think Sabaku can make the game better by adding original cards. I suggest that she makes a poll for people to give ideas of what cards can be added. You could add Barack Obama lol.
Overall
Overall its a nice game if you are bored and you want to be entertained with friends. I give the whole game all together a 7/10.
Why would a map, let alone one where people can walk around, be required for an abstract card game like this? I'd suggest separating the chat and game output into different controls (perhaps using a grid instead of an output for the cards played), shoving the commands into the menu bar, and maybe displaying the Who list automatically in the bottom-left corner.
|
ACWraith wrote:
Why would a map, let alone one where people can walk around, be required for an abstract card game like this? I'd suggest separating the chat and game output into different controls (perhaps using a grid instead of an output for the cards played), shoving the commands into the menu bar, and maybe displaying the Who list automatically in the bottom-left corner. When I say 'map' I don't necessarily mean a place for people to walk around on; just less focus on text, more focus on graphical representations. ie show a game screen with the cards, so you can easily see what's in play without having to look through all the text or scroll up. Plus Chatters was a lot more fun with a map. :P |
just because the game functions in a general manner similar to the real version doesn't mean it deserves high ratings across the board
there are tons of ways the game could be improved, especially in the presentation category (which you gave a 9/10- why?). it has no map at all, which would make it look so much more appealing and enjoyable, and it's using the standard UI, which looks awful. you have to sit there staring at text and click on verbs, not very appealing
not to say that the game is bad though, it's well programmed (aside from the lack of features), this is just a bad review