from the A Game By Its Cover game jam. – [Author’s Description]
(via RockPaperShotgun and indiegames.com)
Argument Champion (bigblueboo)
Posted by Terry
on August 20, 2012
from the A Game By Its Cover game jam. – [Author’s Description]
(via RockPaperShotgun and indiegames.com)
This game was really enjoyable. I loved the way you could arrange some really weird scenarios, like how I used the idea of Feminism to argue against my opponent’s BORRROW, and then Feminist to argue for my TRAIN.
I’d be curious to hear of someone’s experience playing this with two human players.
As-is, I thoroughly enjoyed this, but don’t see how to make playing against the computer anything but trivial.
(Actually, thinking a bit more about this: difficulty could be improved without hurting the player experience if the computer were to take its turn first and if the player thus knew how short a connection-path s/he needed to find in order to balance out the computer’s turn. This — coupled with the computer playing more efficiently than it is now — would encourage more strategic play, e.g., risking backing out of a successfully found path in order to find a shorter one. As-is, one quickly learns within a round of each level that anything within five or six steps will be sufficient to counteract the AI’s choices.)
But counteracting the AI’s choices isn’t enough, at least in the third level when you start a whole heart behind. My experience was that the computer would usually be in the three-to-five step range, so beating that consistently isn’t trivial.
I did think the final level was too easy, though. Since we’ve got seven rounds to make up the difference, why not start behind like on the third level? I ended up making a one-step connection in the second round, which launched me three hearts ahead of the AI where I remained for about the rest of the game.
Overall I thought this was awesome. Maybe a slightly bigger concept web would help at times–I tried to connect REMOTE to ADVERTISEMENT (probably through TELEVISION), but it turns out the game was thinking of the adjective and I never even got close to making it work.
Why does somebody in the audience love Hitler? I don’t think I even want his support.
this game is fantastic. In the last round i had DILEMMA and my opponent had DECEASED and both of us ended up only arguing the pros and cons of DILEMMA because neither of us could work out how to get to DECEASED quickly.
This is a really fun game that involves a lot of creative thinking. The only problem with this game is the names, all the words should be completely logical and have no trivia. Also they need to add a quick match mode with adjustable difficulty.
A delightfully nonsensical game. Yet I was surprised how closely this model emulates an actual debate.
I did find it incredibly easy, though. For some strange reason, the final two opponents kept whiffing on their arguments, so I won them almost entirely unopposed.
At level 2, it stops working for me. I’m supposed to chose one of the things they’re thinking, and nothing I click on allows me to go further.
It’s a good game, but I’m worried I’m doing something wrong.
I like that the sprites, while presumably being Mother 3 sprite edits, nonetheless feel cohesive with the rest of the game. JRPG NPCs probably would have debates about weird abstractions like this, were they the inhabitants of an entire world.