Thumbnail / Header for article: Creature Quellector

Creature Quellector

Welcome to the devlog for my game Creature Quellector. In this devlog, I’ll briefly describe the process, problems I faced, how I solved them, why I made certain decisions, yada yada.

And yes, I say “briefly”. This devlog is nearly 6,000 words, but that’s quite short for any development, and especially for one with as many bumps and sidetracks as this one.

Let’s get the story rolling!

What’s the idea?

I’m on a search for “queueing games” or “waiting games”. Games so simple, low on requirements and space, that you could play them to pass the time in a waiting room or queue.

Card games are ideal for this. You merely have to keep a small deck of cards with you. You don’t need a table: players can keep the cards in their hand.

However … there’s the problem of the discard / draw pile. Most card games feature either drawing cards during the game, or discarding them (very often).

I needed an idea that didn’t need either of those things.

I came up with a few “Quellector” ( = obviously a pun on Collector) games. You don’t play or draw cards. You collect them, always keeping them in your hand. And the best hand, when the game ends, is the winner.

The goal of such a game is always to improve your starting hand over time.

Initially, I had two ideas.

  • One where the cards were creatures (like Pokémon). You’d battle, perhaps lose some creatures to the opponent (or capture them), and try to create the strongest squad.
  • One where the cards where buildings / parts of a town. You’d try to improve the value or efficiency of that town in your hand.

This game is obviously the first of those ideas.

First try

The general idea

I quickly grabbed a paper, cut it into small cards, and drew type icons on them.

Each card could have 1-4 types. Often they were all the same, but they could appear in any (random) combination.

I decided on 5 possible types.

  • Fire
  • Water
  • Grass (or nature)
  • Earth (or stone)
  • Air (or wind, or flying)

The typical “elements”.

Each had a weakness. They were in a circle: Fire < Water < Earth < Air < Grass < Fire.

Below was my first idea.

  • Pick an opponent and a number 1–3.
  • Both need to choose that many cards from your hand ( = your “Squad”) and reveal them
  • Check who wins (see below)
  • You trade squads. The winner, however, gets to keep one card back.

A typical problem with these games is that strong people (with a lucky starting hand or first turn) just get stronger and stronger. The winner is already determined right from the start. And they’ll play their strongest squad, each time, in a fight.

By always swapping squads, I sought to remedy this. You still want to win the fight—as you basically steal a card from the opponent—but need to take into account you’ll lose the other cards. It becomes more fluid and strategical.

How do you count who wins?

  • Sum all the icons across the whole squad.
  • However, if the opponent has more icons of the Counter to a type, that type is now worthless.

To calculate your score at the end of the game, you simply check the Counters against yourself. (As such, during the game, you want to get rid of hand cards countering your other cards.)

That’s the whole game, and, as always, I was hopeful and thought it would work.

Why it did not work

Counting your score was just too hard. You had to count each type separately, remember its total, and then work out which of them actually scored you points. It was overwhelming. It felt like homework.

When I lowered the elements to 4, it was easier to count, but also easier to start a game with a great hand with no issues. Thus making the game itself pointless. (Lowering it to 3 broke everything.)

Additionally, I didn’t want to limit the types so severely. Because, if this game works, it’d be very nice to create expansions or extra cards with new types along the way. (Like how Pokémon added more types and abilities over time, slotting them in.)

So we have a game that …

  • Has a simple core that actually does work as intended. (You need to choose your battles wisely and can manipulate that.)
  • But is over way too quickly
  • Feels like homework to even think about
  • And is generally overwhelming and not that fun.

Second try

How do we make it easier? By changing the one rule that’s the issue: the types and Countering them.

Instead of giving each card a mix of 1-4 icons, let’s give each card two things.

  • A main type. Clearly displayed, big, the whole card matches its color. Underneath it is a reminder of the type it counters. (For example, a Water creature would have a reminder that it counters Fire.)
  • A set of icons below. These will mostly match the main type, but can have other types.

The new rule becomes

All types that the opponent Counters, are worth nothing

Much simpler. It’s all-or-nothing. It’s very unlikely that you get a starting hand where no type is countered away. You don’t need to count, and recount, and remember all sorts of numbers.

Additionally, I wanted to add special actions to the cards. But this should be a very accessible “queueing” game, so no text! Instead, action icons are just another “type” that can appear.

Fights are a three-step plan.

  • The player with the most action icons, picks one of those to execute.
  • Any types countered are worth nothing
  • Sum whatever type icons remain; each is worth +1

Testing this, the results are positive. It’s now much easier/faster to see …

  • The “score” of your hand
  • The result of a fight
  • Things you might want to do

I did decide to decrease the hand size to 5 cards. When you win a big fight, you might get a lot of cards. Anything above 7 or 8 cards is still overwhelming to calculate. (Although this is, again, hard to gauge playing against myself. Because I have to switch between 3 or 4 players, instead of being able to just look at my own hand and nothing else.)

And maybe, for a first game, the number of different types can be decreased to just 4 types.

Lastly, if somebody is out of cards, the game also ends immediately. This can certainly happen, and I don’t want one player to just … sit and watch while the others keep battling for 15 more minutes (with a hand filled with cards). It also adds a strategic element: you can bet your whole hand, because instantly finishing the game might surprise the others and lead to more points for you.

Working towards a prototype

Fixing types

I wanted to finalize the list of different types (and their general meaning/color/icon).

Then I realized: with these simplified rules, the different types don’t matter. There can only be 4 or 5 types in a game. Any more, and the probability of countering each other (or your own hand) is just too low.

So what would be the point of adding more types? Would it just be for nice colors and variation in the design? That feels a bit flimsy to me.

Additionally, I can’t just add another type to the “counter cycle”. Let’s say Fire < Water, but the expansion adds Fire < Ice. Now Fire suddenly has two weaknesses, which is unbalanced. But if I say Fire < Ice < Water, then all cards with water need to change because its counter changed.

As such, I can’t break the game into “modules” (to download/use/print separately) this way.

How to change that?

After considering many options, I decided that the idea of completely separate modules (that you could mix-and-match in any way after the fact) just wouldn’t work for this game. Instead, if you wanted different cards, you’d have to reprint all material. That’s just the logical consequence of having such a tightly knit game where each type must counter exactly one other type, in a cycle.

As such, the website should simply have 4 dropdown lists. Use those to pick your 4 elements. It will generate a PDF using only that!

Moreover, the action icons also have their own type. (Though they clearly signal they are an action by using a different icon.) Why? So that each type can have its own icon. A “fire action” always does X, a “water action” always does Y.

This is by far the easiest to explain and remember (for players). Once you’ve chosen the elements you like best, you get a PDF with just that and no other (visual or rules) noise. Once you’ve played a game with it, you know exactly what the Counters are and what the Action of each element is.

Finalizing actions

So, what are good actions? With the new system, we only get four different actions, whatever material you print. They need to be powerful, but also fitting for their element.

  • FIRE/RED: Aggressive actions, mostly about stealing or removing a card.
  • WATER/BLUE: Fluid actions, mostly about changing or swapping.
  • GRASS/GREEN: Defensive actions, mostly about preventing bad stuff or controlling damage
  • AIR/PURPLE: Surprise actions, mostly about randomness, variation, and risk.

I won’t give the entire list, also because it will probably change as development continues. But the list above gives the general idea per type. Because each game will have all 4 types (exactly), I can be pretty sure it’s balanced. There are just as many defensive actions (green) as offensive ones (red). (As long as I track this with my algorithm, when generating the material, of course.)

Designing the types

As stated, I picked the 4 colors RED, BLUE, GREEN and PURPLE. They’re simply at (roughly) equal distances to each other on the color wheel. This means maximum contrast/separation between all types, at all times.

Each color has 4 types. (For example, Fire has Fire, Lightning, Star, Dragon.) Each has a different, simple icon. For two of them, I was heavily inspired by the Pokémon icon for the type, because I just couldn’t figure it out myself. The others were done by me without reference, because, as I said, I want to move away from feeling like “you just copied Pokémon”.

My own set of element/type icons.
My own set of element/type icons.

Additionally, each type has its own action. This also requires its own, simple icon.

I decided to first invent a few “shorthands” for the actions. For example, there’s one action where you steal from another player’s hand, but another where you steal from their squad. This is a subtle difference you want to put into the icon itself. (Instead of just using a generic card for both to indicate a “steal” action.)

  • Hand = a card with a hand symbol
  • Squad = a card with a creature symbol (a pretty generic face with pointy ears)
  • Steal = one arrow
  • Swap = two arrows (going opposite ways)
  • Type = a rounded rectangle (which is also used around all type icons)

With those shorthands, most icons were very basic and straightforward (as they should be!) I also decided to add a slight border around them, to indicate they are the action icons. A small thing, and it might change, but I think it really helps players quickly distinguish the symbols.

My own set of action icons.
My own set of action icons.

Designing the cards

At first, I wanted to color the whole card (according to the main type of the creature). After trying for a while, I had to give up on that idea.


  • Because the card can have any other type icon as well, I’d need colors that look good on all the other colors. You just can’t get that with 4 completely different colors.
  • The worst one was actually the type itself. If I want to add a red icon to an already red card … I need two different shades of red, or I have to add a thick outline/shadow/separation around all icons.

The simplest way to make everything simple, but clear and easily legible … was just to make all card backgrounds white. Or, rather, a slightly off-white color to make it look a bit more warm and professional.

With that, I don’t need any extra work to make all the colors look clean.

As expected, the drawing of the creature will go at the top. However, as the drawing has absolutely no value besides looking good, I don’t want it to take up too much space.

The main type goes in the center, big and clear. With cards, though, you also want the most important information in the corners. (So it’s easier to read when you have a hand full of cards and can’t see the full card all the time.)

I also added the main type in the top right and the bottom left. This interfered with my area reserved for the drawing … so I just cut a hole out of that area.

Now I had no space to add the creature’s name Normally, it goes above or below the creature drawing. I thought: why not put it at the bottom? It adds nice symmetry with the drawing at the top, so yeah, I did that.

I looked at my prototype and realized it’s highly unlikely that a card has more than 4 type icons. So I fixed the icon size on something that allows four icons next to each other on the card. (Placing them in two rows just looks worse, to my eyes.) The resulting size is nice and large.

Finally, I had two issues.

  • That main icon cuts quite a bit into the drawing. It feels like a shame to hide a part of the drawing like that, but I see no way around it.
  • Where/how do we display what this type counters?

Initially, I wanted to display the Counter type underneath the big bold type icon. But …

  • This leaves empty space at the sides that feels unbalanced
  • We don’t really have space for this: the type icons, the meat of the card, should be below it

So I placed it at the side. Not only what this card counters, but also which type counters us. It’s a cycle, and now each card has an easy reminder about the order of that cycle. I think it’s an improvement over the initial idea.

After all that work, we get cards like below. (I hadn’t fully decided the layout, but that wasn’t necessary. I could already write the code and continue work with this general template.)

Initial attempts at finding a card layout.
Initial attempts at finding a card layout.

Coding the material generator

This is mostly just boooooring :p I have to code stuff to be in the right place, load the right assets, put it all in a PDF.

The only interesting bit is how it decides to pick types and type icons.

  • Every deck has equally many cards of each main type, and equally many action icons.
  • The first type icon of such a card is always the same as the main type.
  • Additionally, the action icons are distributed “beforehand”. (To ensure they all get placed and it’s fair.)

Once that is done, cards are free to “fill up” however they want. Although it follows some restrictions:

  • The algorithm tracks how often each type icon has been used
  • It favors picking types that have been used the least, of course. (To always balance the scales.)
  • When it picks a type, it also picks how often it wants to place it (1-3 times). Why?
    • Otherwise, we get many cards that just have … one of each type (or something close). Cards aren’t unique enough and are just random noise.
    • At the same time, this purposely unbalances the scales, adding more variation.
    • (Once placed, it cannot pick that type again for the same card.)

It’s a rather standard way to ensure types and actions are distributed fairly across the whole deck.

The downside is that I can’t ensure this balance if you print multiple different decks, and then start to mix them. To ensure that, I’d have to balance the numbers within each type. Doing that, however, makes the game too uniform and safe, so I don’t want that.

I wanted to show an image here to break up the text, but, well, so far this is all just code and numbers. And a screenshot of a bunch of numbers that tell me “hey the types are properly distributed!” isn’t that interesting.

But don’t worry, the visuals will come soon!

Maybe not so boring after all

Update! I took a break for a while (finishing other projects), and when I returned, I was in the middle of a big upgrade to the code behind my website. This prompted the thought: “Man, I should really write a proper layout/graphics system for all this game material I’m generating”

It became clear to me that I was spending a lot of time—creating huge projects that I want to last—while coding parts of that on quicksand. Yes, my code was rather clean and fast, but it was still a mess of interconnected systems that wasn’t ideal.

With every game, I’d need to go in there and tweak some functionality, afraid it would break all the other board games that came before!

I was placing all these elements (images, text, shapes) manually, by setting the position and size every time I made that draw call.

Surely, there was a better and faster way :p

I spent more than a week creating my own “Layout” system. Now, each design is a tree of containers (similar to an HTML web page), which can say stuff like “I want to be centered inside my parent!” and “My children need to form a grid!” (Somewhat similar to the properties you have in CSS, the language for designing the layout for web pages.)

To place things on the card, I merely create the right containers, then set the right properties to align/resize/anchor/etcetera them properly. Much faster, much more robust, much cleaner code. When I went back to update all the old games, I could often replace hundreds of lines of code with just twenty lines of those Containers.

Anyway, this completely messed up my planning and made this project take much langer than I anticipated. Hopefully this improved design keeps paying off on all board game projects the next ten years.

Why didn’t you just build your material in HTML/CSS and use an existing JS library to take an image of that?

I could have. It might have been the better choice. (For example, there’s html2canvas that is serving millions of people quite well.)

I, however, don’t want to take on any dependencies. These have bitten me in the past, time and time again, and bloat the size of the website. I want to keep it extremely small and efficient, partially because that’s just the best thing to do, partially because my old broken laptop really can’t handle more.


  • HTML/CSS is very much based around text. In all my games so far, text has been a rarity, as those designs are mostly about shapes and images.
  • I need tighter control over certain things (resolution, exact card dimensions, freeform placement) that I can provide more easily this way.
  • I can slot this in with my other system (that uses Phaser) for generating boards. (So I could generate a board with Phaser, but use my own Layout system to design a certain part of it more easily.)
  • I liked the challenge and learnt a lot from it.

That said, this was a very tough challenge that derailed me for a while, and maybe it was the wrong choice. Who knows. At least I have a working Layout system now that is making me more productive.

Creating the creature drawings

Hmm, I thought I already wrote a loooong bit here about my research and trials. Apparently I merely did that in my head, or I lost it somewhere.

Anyway, this was another learning process.

  • I wanted creatures in the style of Pokémon … but not steal/copy/overdo Pokémon.
  • I wanted creatures that looked natural and cute … but also related to their element and action
  • I wanted creatures within a nice environment … without showing too much/too little of either

I tried a few different styles.

  • More cartoony => too simplistic and too stylistically diverse at the sane time
  • (Flat) icons (like the element types I did) => well, they looked like icons, not full size card art
  • Knitted/Plushy/Stuffed animals => looked AMAZING on some, absolutely terrible/unusable for most animals or creatures
  • More painterly (watercolor, digital art) => again, sometimes this just REALLY works, and then often it doesn’t

In the end, I settled on the following balance.

  • A prompt that does say “in the style of Pokémon”
  • But also adds other modifiers that highlight aspects of that (manga, hand-drawn, cute)
  • The keyword “semi-detailed” seemed magic. (Just “detailed” created something too realistic, leaving it out created simplistic cartoon animals again.)

This created images that resembled Pokémon, but were never clearly inspired by one of them or stuck too rigidly to that.

An important lesson

This wasn’t enough, though. If I ask for a dolphin, I get a pretty standard dolphin. If I ask for a dragon—an actual Pokémon creature (type)—I get some morphing that is clearly inspired by that actual Pokémon.

As I’ve (also) learned with previous projects, I need to be more specific and targeted with my initial ideas. I need to come up with something odd, something unique, something that turns the AI into fun directions.

For example,

  • Not “a dolphin creature”, but “a dolphin with ten fins like a mane”.
  • Not a “dragon”, but a “red dragon with a body shaped like a flame”.
  • Not a “grass animal”, but a “porcupine with grass as its spikes”.

With some luck, prompts like these instantly gave usable and unique results. The animals became creatures, more magical and fantasy without going overboard.

The biggest lesson

Was that enough? No, then I learned the biggest lesson.

For the “weather” type … I didn’t know what to do. A cloud creature seemed obvious, but that was better suited for the “air” type. A creature made from rain or snow yielded no usable results, while telling it to draw an animal standing in the rain usually just meant half your image was covered in waterdrop icons.

Until I tried to blend two animals. I picked one water animal (a goldfish) and something related to weather (a bird) and told the AI to mix the two.

While this is no magic wand—it never is—this does force the AI to be creative and come up with interesting usable results. A goldfish-bird immediately looked like it could be a Pokémon.

Below is an image of one creature for each possible element. (There are multiple spritesheets like these so that even within one element there is variation.)

As always, editing done by me all over the place, but not terribly much.
As always, editing done by me all over the place, but not terribly much.

Even though I was already done with generating images, I decided to do another round a few days later. This new approach yielded much better results for certain elements. (Usually, I’m happy with about 50% of the results after an hour or two. The other 50% is “usable”, but I write down which ones I’d like to improve by hand if possible.)

Separating background from foreground

See, I’m still sure I did write this section earlier, because now I completely forgot to mention a smart decision I took just before generating the creatures!

I decided to separate background and foreground. The creatures are generated on a white background, then cut out and edited later (on their own). Then I generate empty background images.

In my material generator, it picks two of them (one belongs to the main type of the card, the other to a secondary type that’s also present) and puts them on top of each other.

This meant that a beautiful creature couldn’t be ruined by a bad background in the image (or vice versa). It meant more control over both of them and how prominent they are. It also meant more creativity and personal input into the process, preventing the feeling of “being lazy and letting AI do all the work”.

Below is a separate spritesheet with one background for each type. Because, again, there are multiple of these so that backgrounds stay diverse as well.

Not sure if the dark one is too out-of-place right now, we’ll see when we have the full cards.
Not sure if the dark one is too out-of-place right now, we’ll see when we have the full cards.

About rules images

On a side note, I’ve learned that adding some sort of frame around images in my interactive rules is basically what you always want. I’ve done this for each of my past few games, and it just always makes the rules look cleaner and the separation of image/text more easily distinguishable.

(In Kangaruse, there’s a wooden frame around everything. In this game, there’s a rectangle with parts “cut out”. That’s what I mean with framing.)

This is especially true for digital rules / web pages, where text can reflow in ways you didn’t predict, or I might change the background color of a section on a whim and forget that the rules image becomes less readable ;)

With every project, you learn a little more.

Expect all my rules from now on to find some visual decoration to frame rules images and clearly set them apart.

This is clear on its own, but also very clear when combined with other text/a resizable rules window
This is clear on its own, but also very clear when combined with other text/a resizable rules window

A major change

As I made my rulebook images and interactive example, something nagged at me. Something I probably saw a long time ago, but I dismissed it. I was so focused on making a game inspired by the idea of “Pokémon types” and how they “countered each other”, that I clung to that rule, even when the whole game around it changed.

The current rules are:

  • Check the main types of your opponent (the big icon in the middle)
  • Now check the type that they counter. (Always the same, displayed to the right of it.)
  • All icons of that type are worth nothing for you in this fight.

This isn’t terrible. It’s short and fast. See, I just explained it with three bullet points!

But … it’s still one step too many.

Why the extra step? Why “check the main type … and then check what they counter”?

That’s a second step with no purpose. Water always counters fire, for example. So all these rules do is add an extra, unnecessary, always-the-same step when calculating your battle results. It makes the rules very indirect, whereas they could be much sharper.

Namely, by simply removing this whole counter system. I know, I know, the whole idea started with that and it has been the core of the game since the beginning. That’s probably why I subconsciously ignored the nagging voice about this inefficiency. (Though I also kept the system of counters, partially, because I thought I might be able to do something more with it.)

We can take that rule away and nothing changes. See,

  • Check the main types of your opponent.
  • All icons of that type are worth nothing for you in this fight.

Tada! Even simpler rules, even simpler explanation, everything still works.

I normally don’t make such a huge change this late in the process. I already have the code, the example images, everything tightly integrated with the current idea.

But it just feels stupid to release the game with that, knowing one entire chunk of the rules could be removed (simplifying the game) without affecting anything. (Well, some special actions need a minor tweak as they talk about those “counters”, but that’s it.)

After a long sigh, I moved all the current work to a backup folder (ya never know), so I could rip out the counter system from the game in the definitive version.

The rules text didn’t become much shorter: just two lines and a few shorter sentences. The images/example, however, which are both quite crucial to explaining the game, became much simpler.

I also made a mess with naming. There are three different things in this game, and I called them “main type”, “type (icon)” and “action type (icon)”. Yeah, not great, the new rules highlighted that even more.

Now …

  • The “main type” of each creature is called its element. (I already called the four elements, well, elements in all other places.)
  • The other icons are called its powers, and are either a type or an action.
  • So the core rule of the game becomes: “All your types that match an element of the opponent are worth nothing”

Much clearer. Saves a few words as well!

I am a little sad about losing the whole counter system and the UI part I made for that. But this change really does seem like an obvious way to simplify and streamline the game, without really losing anything.

I forgot to take a screenshot/save a PDF of the old versions. So here’s a screenshot of the old versions of the card, next to the new version of the rulebook image explaining what each element of a card means.

Sorry, it’s the best I have! It’s also the first screenshot of the actual (near) finished cards, I realize now. If you want to see the full set of cards, you can obviously just go to my website and get yourself a PDF!

Yes, the counter icons are even wrong on this one, as Purple obviously isn’t meant to counter … Purple.
Yes, the counter icons are even wrong on this one, as Purple obviously isn’t meant to counter … Purple.

Playtesting & Conclusion

We finally have our cards, balanced and polished, so I can start playtesting the game with people other than myself.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to test the game as much as one should. As always happens with me, projects that see too many obstacles (and take too long) really take a toll on me and I’ve taught myself to just “finish it and move on” at some point.

I was so done with working on this game that I finished it, did one playtesting night to see if there were no major mistakes, and that was that. Taking on the extra task of “create a whole layout library” while in the middle of this project was a bad idea.

Lessons learned. Not doing that again. Finish a project first, then consider major rewrites or code architecture challenges.

Anyway, the game worked when I tested it against myself, it also worked when played with others. It’s a really, really fast game. It’s over once people have seen most of the cards that are in this particular game (and can thus make an educated guess whether their hand is the best one or not). There’s a good amount of luck, but also a good amount of strategy.

You can certainly do smart moves by picking who you want to battle and which cards you want to use.

Starting with a “better hand” (lucky hand) isn’t a big deal, because you don’t know if it’s good (as you don’t know the other cards yet), and you have to fight at least once before you can say you’re done. (And then again, a game is over after 5 to 10 minutes.)

The rules—especially after removing the Counter system—are really simple and quick to teach.

The fact that no cards are ever drawn/removed enhances strategy while keeping the game small and light. The fact that all play happens by battling other players creates super high interactivity—which, if you know my games, is something I always aim for.

I only made these small changes/clarifications after testing. All of them relate to the actions and how they’re handled. (As I expected, they’re the lifeblood of the game that need finetuning.)

  • When you have the most action icons, you must execute one of the actions. (It’s not optional.) In practice, this was simply more fun and more interesting. It means you can actually hinder yourself if you’re not smart about your action icons. It means something always happens, instead of players deliberating for 30 seconds then … doing nothing.
  • Similarly, if there’s a tie, the defender wins. It’s consistent with the overall fighting rules, and it, again, ensures at least one action happens.
  • When calculating your final score, action icons used to count as +1 (always). In practice, though, it’s more consistent and easy to understand if they can be countered as well (just like regular types).
  • Most of the actions were designed with the idea that you want to win fights more often than lose them. However, in practice, it’s more 50/50. As such, some of the actions were changed to also allow the other side. (For example, an action that allowed adding a card to the squad, now also allows removing one.)

My only major gripe is that the game can be a bit random, as from the start you have no idea what other players have in their hand or what they’ll put into a battle. (As a consequence of that, “winning” a battle is perhaps discouraged too much at times. Because if you have 6+ cards, it’s highly likely that you have all elements and thus are left with 0 points.)

This isn’t a real issue in the sense that you can theoretically learn the other player’s hands (after a few turns): each battle has players publicly showing cards, then trading them, so you know they have those cards. In practice, however, this requires serious memorization skills that most won’t have (or don’t care to apply).

The purple actions somewhat combat this, as they’re about revealing and giving information. I searched for some simple rule change or tweak that might help more. Eventually, one extra scoring rule did most of the trick.

Your actions are not countered if you have the most out of all players.

This means you can have a lot of cards (with all elements) and still score reasonably, as long as you’ve consciously upped your number of actions. It’s a blend between the original rule (actions can’t be countered) and the new one (actions are just types when scoring) that mitigates this issue.

So yeah, the game is pretty good, especially for what it’s supposed to be (a quick, light filler game you might even play while waiting in line). But I’m not going to lie and pretend I tested this more than that, and I think there’s a better version of this game somewhere (both gameplay and graphics). That always happens though. You made something, so you learned how to do it better next time.

I am done with this game! It became something that took 10x more time than it should’ve, and I’m ready to move on. As soon as you start to hate every aspect of your current project and just can’t make yourself work on it, that’s when you know you should just finish it and move on.

As such, you might also have guessed that I’m writing this devlog at 12 AM as the last task from the to-do list before the game is officially done. And I am tired, so I’m stopping here!

(This might all sound a bit negative, but I want to remind you that this is a completely honest and transparent devlog about the journey of developing such projects. Making games is hard. Not everything works out, or feels good, or stays fun forever.)

Until the next devlog,