On Sale: GamesAssetsToolsTabletopComics
Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags

I've played the solitary game and I tried to play Ghazal by myself when handling 2 hands.

I'll provide more remarks on the game-side as I'm way more confident with this (as a game designer).

I really like the idea of combining card games with poems so for the experientation I give 5. It's clearly innovating with the medium.

For the interactivity I'll give it 4. This game exists solely through interaction and I would have givent it a 5 if the resulting interaction always was producing verses or poems. It's not always the case, sometimes the interaction takes over the poetry.

For the polish I'd give a 2. For me it's a prototype which still needs testing with players. I found the rules not explicit enough, which for a game is a big problem, a game is a set of rules. For example what does it mean that cards "cohere"? are they a pair of identical symbols, or figures, or just that words from the two cards seem coherent?
For solitaire I just went with my own set of rules to be able to play the game, but for the Ghazal I really had difficulties, I do not know what is expected from me (I suppose when you know what Ghazal is maybe it's easier, but I've read the wiki page on Ghazal and it didn't help at all, so I went with my own rules but playing by myself it wasn't fun so I stopped).
For the solitaire, what is absent is the explication on "cohere" and also the numbers associated with figures (I assumed J = 11, Q=12 et K=13, A = 1 but what do I do with the king in this case as it is 13 all by itself, => I changed rules to pair it with  J= 0 and two kings which "cohere" I guess ?). But what was detrimental to my experience is that solitare game actually requires remembering cards, it's a lot of mental effort so the poetry is left a bit on the side. Either I try to play solitare or I'm doing a poem. Not two at the time. And frankly solitaire isn't an interesting game, especially if you don't put the mental effort. So the game part isn't fun. it's not a problem generally, but usually what is expected from card games is that they are fun, challenging etc. What I did to make it more fun was read the words aloud and it sort of became a poem I guess. But I don't know if this is intentional.
Lastly, the game requires a certain effort from the player to prepare, cut out all the cards, each card has to be cut out separately etc. that's not something a casual player will be willing to do, For a finished game I suppose it would be better to create your own cards that are layed out nicely on 3-4 pages and that can by cut easily all at the same time with a guilotine (much quickier). But for the prototype the format you gave is perfectly ok !

For the poem I'm giving 3, because as it is, it's more a game than a poem. I see the potential. and I guess it would benefit or play better if the game rules part was diminished, use simplier games like asimple tarot game, where you just lay the cards in no particular order creating word verses etc.
I liked the letters that accompagny your game-poem, it's a pity that they don't really have any influence on whats happening during the game. but they definitely give this a sense of sort of holisting experience, a game that exists in some fictional world. I really liked this.

but all in all it's a very interesing piece :) 
congrats on taking the risk!

(+1)

Thank you for leaving such a thorough comment, and for giving some of the games a try! I hope you play some of the multiplayer ones sometime, or try the ghazal one with another person -- as you've pointed out, it doesn't work very well when you play it alone, and much of the fun of the deck is in using it with others. (I threw in the Solitaire game just so prospective players could realize that there are ways to play with it by themselves. Incidentally, the way you ended up playing it is the way I hoped people would!)

In any case, I really appreciate your feedback on the rules! "Fish" was adapted from this website and "Pyramid" from this one, but the rest I'd learned from others I'd played cards with in person. I was trying to keep the instructions within the limits of a single page, so I was banking on my audience having some prior familiarity with them (at least enough to recognize to which classic game each set of rules corresponded if they felt puzzled, and to know J = 11, Q = 12, K = 13). I'm sorry for any confusion/frustration because of that! I will definitely run the "Ghazal" game through more tests and watch some of my friends play it to figure out where the unclarity lies. I'm curious -- what rules did you come up with when you played it to make it work for you?

As for my use of "cohere" in the instructions: In future versions, I will consider making it clearer that I mean verbal coherence, but I also wanted it to be vague enough for people to put, say, "passion" and "rapture" together and for this to feel legitimate (even though this is not a coherent set of words without an "and" inserted between them). I wanted the deck to be seen as an occasion for players to negotiate the meanings of different terms and the ways they might go together.

Your suggestion to make my own cards is a great one, and I hope I can once I have more time! I also hope I can someday make a digital version where players can save/use decks that have words of their own choosing, but I still need to get the coding chops for it...

(1 edit) (+1)

the way you describe "cohere" is great, you could just take this paragraph and put it in the rules. it's an explicit rule : "interpret this rules as you feel / want". in fact, many experimental games have this as rule ;)
I'm pointing this, because culturally I'm used to the fact that card games' rules are very explicit if not otherwise stated (epecially with traditional 52+2 card'sz deck in use)  but again this is my perspective as game designer.

For Ghazal I tried matching figures, I though of matching suites but I never had any. I did not understand how to put the verse with the couplets. the free phase was cool. In the end I just tried to make 3-5 word phrases at random. I admit i enjoyed my solitaire game more.

To solve the rules length problem you could maybe imagine this as a small zine, with the letters you've put in separate files and have one page where you just list the games with a brief description + photo and then a separate page for each game rules, use more images (ex. photos of example games), have more examples. 

I really enjoyed the fact that it is a physical game, and though making a digital game gives opportunity to have more words etc. I fiand that "playing"/"toying" with this poem is it's biggest quality. I would rather iterate on this version, make it more accessible, quicker to set etc. rather that going digital but it's your call :)
players can always use tape to paste our own words just like you did. I mean the rules for the game could be litteraly: "take an old deck of cards and paste this list of word on them" ;)