Game #3 (Y2K) Critique — Harris and Ithan
Ithan and I selected Y2K because we really liked the overall style of the game, the idea of using a world-map as the game board, and the overall feeling of exploration in the game. This (the exploration) was a key element that we wanted to retain, and potentially expand upon, in our rendition of the game. We liked a lot of the game’s use of game components, and will be retaining several of the key ones (i.e. the use of meeple, although we’re changing the way in which they’re used).
There were, however, some things we didn’t love about Y2K, and that we therefore wanted to modify or potentially even remove. Among these was the game’s battle system. We thought it came off a little too confusing, and that it could be re-worked and made more streamlined to make play more meaningful, more easily understood, and overall a better component of the game. Furthermore, while we liked the theme of the game (exploration, open gameplay, settling, etc.) we didn’t like some of the story elements of the game. For this reason, we are changing the back-story and overall goal of the game to be more reflective of a story we wanted to tell through the game (Wasteland Survival/Settling versus the original story of internet hacking, etc.).
Additionally, as we’ve said before, we liked the style of the game (with the open-endedness and the world map game board (as used in Pandemic)), however we wanted to change it to better accommodate our ideas. Pandemic used a number of particular points on the map, and they weren’t named. We wanted to switch to a Risk game board, as this would change the points to actual regions, which were more conducive to the idea of settling and adding meeples, tokens, etc. Furthermore, the regions of the Risk board work better for our new version of the game, as they have titles and can therefore be easily referred to, talked about, etc.