Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
(1 edit)

DESIGN: The idea is quite interesting. I've always wondered about the idea of making a game out of conversation - because there are in many ways strategies that are used, especially in arguments, to compete for social standing/credibility. This was a pretty good execution of that, although in my quick playthrough it was hard to know exactly why each selection was causing the moods to react the way they did.

THEME: I really think a wiser choice could have been made for the theme put on top of this design. I see in other comments that you say the sexist stereotypes were intentional, but it's not clear from the game itself whether this is satire, or whether this is how the creators view the world. Besides the stereotypes, the name and main gif strongly (but I think inaccurately) suggest a game about violent domestic abuse. It's totally fine to have this in games, but it should be a purposeful and careful decision, in my opinion. I think in this case it's just a misleading image, but worth noting as it may put potential clickers off :)


Thanks very much for detailed feedback! It gave me a lot to think about. Here are some quick comments on my side:

DESIGN: Thanks for the good words. The general idea was to mash up Monkey Island's dialolgue  insult swordfighting with turn based tactical damage system. I totally agree that the system should be giving a little more feedback to the novice player (and that's what will do in the postjam version). But the main goal was to learn the game basics through at least several playthroughs (especially if two people are playing it 1v1). I know that in the jam people will be giving it one or two tries, but in long term we wanted to make a lasting experience with a big replayability factor.

THEME: Will think about your feedback and when we add some intro and more context I'll make sure that it looks more of a satire (which is our main intention).