Game 2: Plated Talks- 82 total

Political Impact: 17

• While I wouldn't say that it necessarily "captured the theme" of civic engagement, I do love it's take on the dinner table as a poltical battle ground, as well as something that is often defined by generational divides. Very insightful! 
• I felt that I understood the theme of this game more from the description than the actual experience itself. There is no explanation of rules or environment or what exactly it *is* that the player is doing in this game. I'm not sure how impactful a tower defense-style game is as a game that's meant to be about discussion of politics, civis, and personal beliefs -- it definitely frames these kinds of conversations as combative, and I don't know how I feel about that honestly.
• Minimal engagement with political content beyond the stated theme.
• the message of democracy is kind of abstracted away here, which I do like. However, I think you need a little bit more of a thread that makes the player think of the theme. Even just having the word "democracy" written on the piece of paper would be enough to have the player think about that word in relation to what they are seeing on screen. 
• I think it was a nice idea to deliver the message through family conversation, since that is definitely something many of us experience! Although I think it would've been nice to have more explanation of the theme within the game, as it could be a little unclear. 

Innovation: 22

• It's abstract, but where this game succeeds in my mind is in how well it manages to illustrate the tensions between generations, receiving perspectives, and influencing decision makings. The fact that the thought clouds are "neutral" (they only reflect the magnitude of the outside interest, rather than consideration for themselves) can illustrate the consequences of passivity while being under bombardment from outside perspectives. The need to define oneself is the missing element in voting, and what one cares about for themselves, is a takeaway from playing this. 
• I have never played a tower defense game that was about political conversations, so there's that! But ultimately I don't think it's very innovative, frankly.
• Connection to political discourse/polarization/ideology is nebulous at best. Tower defense concept is interesting but underdeveloped - would have liked to see more choices available.
• i do really like that the political theme is abstracted away here. it doesnt hit me over the head with it too much. However, i am not exactly sure what this game is saying.
• The tower defense concept for a political game isn't something I've seen before and could have a lot of potential for sure. I'd like to see that idea fleshed out more one day maybe.
• The idea and implementation of a combative dinner is very clever

Quality: 19

• It took me a couple of tries to get it (I'm not super familiar with the tower defense genre) but I won on the second playthrough, mostly by hedging my pieces at the end of the coveyer belt. If the thoughts enter red, then the opposition won't target them, buy my pieces will, and so I could convert them just before they hit the end of the line. 
• As with "Get Out the Vote", I'm not sure the developers had enough time to truly polish the game, but it's a good start.
• Credits lacked specifics as to who did what. Game mechanics explanation lacking.
• Even though there isnt much instruction, it is very easy to figure out how to play. i really like the paper aesthetic of this project!
• I liked the music direction with things sounding distorted/messy during the conversation, and the art with the scribble/sketch theme was really nice. I did have a lot of trouble understanding the mechanics, though. It was unclear when or why I got a new tower, when a new round was starting, or how I won.
• Straightforward, clean and fun!

Accessibility: 13

• This game could have improved with even a short explanation of what the rules are or how to play the game.
• No accessiblity mechanics present.
• overall i think the accessibility is solid. its mostly icon/symbol based which is a good accessibility choice.
• I don't think there were any accessibility features that I noticed.
• I could have used a little more explanation about gameplay. I figured it out after a few tries but a bit more upfront would have been nice

Diversity: 11

• It's mostly agender and and aracial, with an aesthetic minimalism. Having said that "red" is associated with republican in the national discourse-- perhaps choosing another color might work best to avoid implications of a known party.
• Given that we don't even know what the political discussions are about, it's hard to answer this question, as the game is so metaphorical. One thing I will say is that it portrays older people (I assume the parents, uncles, aunties, or older family members) as the villains, which.... like, yeah I get why younger people (myself included!) are frustrated by boomer antics. But again, ultimately, framing civic issues as an issue of combat is too simplistic, not productive, in my opinion.
• Diversity not engaged with.
• its kind of tough to judge this section as the individuals in this game are paper-people.
• This game only had two characters from what I could tell, so I don't know if diversity was necessarily a focus.
• The explanatory text talks about young people finding their voice, but the gameplay doesn't necessarily tie into this

Best Newcomer: N/A

This is so cute!! I love the hand-drawn art style and the face sprite for the towers is so cute :)