User:DudaMaximo

Sex Slaves

The game is based on a book called Sex Slaves, and two films Angels of The Sun and Desert of Happiness, all tell stories of girls who are given away by their parents that belive they will have a better life away from their villages. These girls end up being abused and sold as prostitutes to strange men for drugs, money and survivor. All these girls fight for the freedom during the whole saga of the story, which is what the game is about.

The game consist of collecting cards, money and clients to complete the scenario card that tells you exactly what you have to achieve to win the game and win your freedom, die, marry a client or even become a madam. The players have to go around the board and figure out the best strategy to get the cards they need and to go to the right places where they can get more money, more clients, but they need to be careful to the risk level not to be too high, because if it is , even if they have all the cards they cannot win the game.

In the beginning we made the game based on the game monopoly, where they would have to go around the board and role the dice to get their cards, but it was much of a luck game than strategy. After reflecting we decided to make the game based on clue, where the players would have to go around the board to different locations such as nightclub, hotels, shops, brothels and even the streets to collect the cards and money necessary to complete the scenario that are given to the in the start of the game. Also was based on the war on terror game, as you have to go to as many places as possible and we have the ‘ handcuff card’ which prevents the player to play for a whole round, inspired on the evil mask from war on terror.

The games mechanics are Area Movement, Auction/Bidding, Simulation, Point to Point Movement and Role and Move. You have to whole the dice to make your movement from point to point, and it is a simulation of the reality of many young women and children.

The playing-test helped us on seeing that the game did not fill the purpose the teacher asked us, that would be strategy. We then changed the game to something similar to clue and war on terror, although our game for being based on a real situation such a child prostitution, could not be strictly strategic, because the game would have to be played by real personal decisions on how and what you would have to do to win the game. I believe with our changes, it fits for both purposes.

Bibliography

‘Angels of the sun’- Brazil, 2006-Rudi Lagemann

‘Happy Desert’- Brazil/Germany, 2007-Paulo Caldas

BROWN,Louise;Sex Slaves: The Trafficking of Women in Asia.London.Vigaro Press.2000

Reflective Analysis Log
Game of War The first game I played on the week 2 was the game of war. The board and pieces fit the purpose to make us seeing how the mechanic of a real war is, but I tough it was very confusing the fact some of the pieces were the same color so you could not discern who we belonged to. I believe the players would have a better vision if the pieces were divided and had different colors. The rules are very clear, even thought in the beginning it was a bit difficult for me to understand some of the mechanics of the game. After the first moves the rules are easier to get and follow. This was my least favorite game of all, it was not so enjoyable for me, but i think the rest of the class thought it was a very good game; it really brings up the competitive side of all of us. It is an enjoyable game, but i do not think it is very social, for me it is one of those games that are supposed to be played by two people. The game was developed after a revolution, to show people how to act and protect them from possible threatens. The fact you cannot get out of connection with other pieces or your power of defense gets weaker, is very realistic. The realistic side is the fact you cannot get out of connection or your power of movement and defense gets weaker and the attack is bigger than usual. The abstract side is that in the real war, those pieces do not really have the power that are applied for them in the game, other factors help in the war, the strategy, more than the power of each piece. It shows that every movement that you make have a consequence, the other person will expect you move so they can think about their, in a way to win. Like in the economic theory of Game Theory, that the individual success is making choices depends on the other person choice, so he can make the right move. The political lesson is that you have to think about the situation before making a final decision; you need to see all the factors and possible consequences before you make a move. The game is very realistic in this point, especially because there are rules to be followed also in reality. I would change the color of the pieces in the first place, would make the rules a bit more direct and put the number of defense and force under the pieces, so would be easier to identify what is possible to do with each piece.

1776

I do not believe the board and pieces really fit the whole purpose of the game. The board is very big, because there is more than one scenario during the game. There are too many small pieces which make it very easy to lose and get confused. The rules are sometimes very complicated, but after you play a few rounds you know what moves to make and it gets easier to follow the rules of the game. The game is sociable, especially because we played in teams so we had to agree on the decisions, but the game is very long. We did not play the 4 scenarios, we did not have enough time, this is a very negative point in this game, is how long the game takes to be fully played. The game shows the area where the revolution was happening, the most important cities to be occupied in the US and Canada territories, also show the difficulties of moving around because of natural obstacles such as mountains. I do not think this game was realistic in any aspect, only in the movement, the natural obstacles and fire power of the sides. The game was supposed to be realistic about the American Revolution and it did not appear in any time at the game. The game only shows that you have to make the right decision, especially if you are on the American side, because your fire power is weaker than the British fire power, so you have to make the right movement before they occupy all the most important spaces. It does not translate any political lessons to me, because it did not make the feel like we were playing a game about the American Revolution, not even for a second, none of the aspects of the game translate this subject. I would change lots of aspects of the game, first of all the pieces, there are too many and they are very small, I would make them a bit bigger and small numbers. The board, i would make only one board and fewer scenarios, only 2, that way the game could be played in less time what would make it more enjoyable. I would make it more political, with the real fact from the revolution, and would make every fact to be a round of the game, not necessarily a scenario.

War on Terror

This was my favorite game out of all we played during this semester. I think there are too many small pieces, but the board is absolutely amazing. Really fits the purpose of the game, shows all the continents and relevant countries to be occupied during the game. The rules are very easy to follow. After a few rounds it is even easier to make your movement and see the strategy of each player. It is a very enjoyable game and very sociable, everybody starts with the best of intentions. Until you notice someone got more countries than you, more oil than you and more money. That is when the fun begins, because alliances start to appear and people fighting against each other to get more powerful. Terrorists appear, and the thirst for power gets stronger and stronger inside each player. The evil mask was absolutely the best idea on the game, but the fact was a bit too tight for my own safety. I think it is realistic in the aspect that you can play against someone that you think it is a threat for you or someone who is more powerful and make an alliance with other players with the same goal and the fear of being attracted by the terrorist. But it is abstract on the oil division, because it is random, not how it exactly works in the reality. It makes you think who you should set and alliance and who you should go against, the whole fear of becoming a target of the country that have an alliance of terrorists, or simply the terrorists. It is a very political game, in the fact that it goes against what Bush did in his time as president. And to be careful with the terrorists that ask for money every round not to attack you, with can make you absolutely skint. Every round is a new possibility of changing the strategy on the game to make sure you don’t lose and you are not attacked by other players and the terrorists. Also shows how rich the terrorists really are in the end. I would make it with less cards, and less pieces or make them a bit bigger. Other than that I think it is a brilliant game and that i would like to play more than 10 times.

London

I think the mechanic of the game is very good, although there are too many pieces in the game and too many cards and some of the cards annoyed me, because you could only use once and it is really a card game, the board is just to show what exactly are we buying and how much would it coast, how many cards we would get and poverty. The game was very complicated and the rules are hard to get, only after you play for a while you understand exactly what the game wants from you. You would have to divide the cards in at least 7 different spaces, so there were so many cards and details to remember and moves every round. In my opinion it was sociable, but not enjoyable. Sociable because you can play in pairs, or against each other. But not enjoyable, because it is very hard to understand and there are too many moves you have to make and decisions to be taken. And you could make some decisions, but not actually the moves every round. The game is about building London, and as we all know every time you build some place poverty will appear, so I think that was very realistic, and the loans you could take and how you would have to make the payment. But the division of importance and price of the places around London i did not think it was very realistic. In this game was very important that you would put down the right cards, especially because some of them you could only use it once. You would have to take fewer loans as possible or even none. Would also have to make sure you had enough space to lose poverty. I do not believe this game give us the feeling that we are actually building London, you have to make sure you make the right decisions, you don’t get many loans, that you control poverty and that you build only what is necessary, but it goes from player to player, some can become greedy and try to build big monuments and end up with no money at all.

I would change the fact that you can only use some cards once; we should be able to pick any card we wanted from the discard pile and would make it only a card game, no board. By the end of the game we all get confused if the game is either a board game or a card game.

Modern Society

It is a card game; the cards are real good, because they explain what exactly they do on them, the rules are also easy to follow and to understand. The real problem is that no one is really sure who wins, because it is hard to work out the victory point’s aspect. The board in the middle was very confusing also; I was not very sure what that represented and the purpose of that. The rules are very easy, and the cards are self explanatory which helped on the understanding of the game. But it was hard to work out the point you would get and the movements on the small board. I found the game very enjoyable, but not very sociable. Most of the players got really bored before the game even really started. Most because was very confusing and every card we would play, would have a different influence on the movement of the pieces on the board. The game really showed the modern society. We had little time to play it, so we were running against the time, because we wanted to get as many victory points as possible. Our decisions were based on the other players’ cards. I think the game was very abstract in every single aspect, because you couldn’t really show your ideology on the game, you had to play to win, based on the other players moves and to make sure you would get enough points to win. Like I said, it is very abstract, so the decision was based on the cards you had in your hands and on the other players movements. Honestly, i did not learn any lessons from this game, was only very enjoyable to play. Because it does not gives us a real perspective of political aspects. I would change the fact you cannot chose one way to go, green, blue, red, you should be able to chose a side and play against the others to be sure your ideals would be respect. I also would take the board in the middle off the game; it is absolutely unnecessary and just makes the games more complicated, I believe that way the victory points would become easier to count.