Judge feedback

Judge feedback is anonymous and shown in a random order.

• The team should be commended for a novel approach in using markdown (and Obsidian) as a ‘game engine’ and the core concept is solid, but the influence of Risk is very clear. Due to the influence and nature of the presentation the game is limited in its creative approach and more could have been done to highlight a more original approach to the storytelling. Ideally more connection with the object or the story behind the object would be beneficial. It was difficult to see how the game attempted to elicit or embrace empathy in its storytelling and design. There is a question of where the role of generals comes in and how that shapes the human impact of war. This might have been explored in ways that concerned the use of resources or loss of resources. There might have been a clearer way to link the promotion/resignation mechanic with loss/success of the military units. Unfortunately, the game does not really embrace diversity at all. The game idea is conveyed through narrative, visuals and/or sound well enough but ideally all source material should be referenced. I can see how with iteration and refinement this game could be fun and engaging – after all the underlying influences have sold consistently well over decades. However at the moment the rules are too confusing and the differentiation from the influences needs more work.
• This is a game concept which clearly has a lot of connections with boardgames as well as videogames and promises a recognisable territorial control/resources management experience. I didn't feel there was much here about the people caught up in wars, although the advice from the generals was novel and an interesting approach. I wasn't sure from the pitch quite how the game played - I could discern how parts of the system interacted, but found it hard to really understand the pace of the game, for example, or the story that would be told.