Sanity Test for Olygo

Structure is excellent with sections presented in a natural and intuitive order

On box and top of rules

Not needed for abstract game

Short and direct. Doesn't explicitly state a victory condition, but clear statement of goal is more than adequate.

Concise list with counts and clear descriptions

No component pictures, which is probably okay. It's an easy guess that the game logo is based on the general tile format, which gives a fair idea of how the tiles work. However, providing pictures here would give an opportunity to highlight the second aspect of the tiles, the polygon borders that are otherwise not clear until the the examples later in the rules.

A bit loose as far as the order of operations is concerned, but no reasonable person should have difficulty following these instructions

No set up pictures, but shouldn't be needed

A few things are unclear here, some more than others. First, what it means to "play" a tile should be clarified. Turning it face-up and placing next to a previous tile in a regular grid pattern is almost certainly the most sensible way to interpret it, but it's not the only way, and since you've previously advised placing tiles "creatively," I wouldn't make assumptions. (A picture of a proper placement would probably be fine.) Second, "points" is confusing because it's being used (as far as I can tell) to refer to two different concepts: the units by which a player's score is tracked, and the small circles printed on the tiles which are counted up and perhaps multiplied by a factor to determine the amount of the first kind of points that a player receives. Finally, the process for scoring points seems poorly explained or even contradictory. First we're told that points are awarded for completing a polygon, but then it seems that points are only scored for completed shapes that have been claimed by placing a token on them. One rule says that points are added up when a shape is completed, but a later rule says that points are counted up at the end of the game. These might not be technically incompatible, but they leave me with the impression that the point scoring process hasn't been described as much as implied.

Pictures for scoring examples are effective, although the way the player tokens are represented, they look like they might be something printed on the tiles.

Both the trigger for ending the game and the victory condition are clearly explained (although, is it all of one player's tokens, or all players' tokens?). The future tense here feels a bit odd, but doesn't interfere with comprehension.

With a few reasonable assumptions in place, I'm confident I would be playing the game as intended

Good grammar and clearly expressed language throughout.

The white background and an undistinguished font leave the rules looking a bit plain, but with clear headings and reasonable white space the look is good enough.

Quite good. Picture/logo incorporates an example of the primary component of the game while the blurb does a good job of encapsulating gameplay. "Outplay" seems a little bland. "Outscore" or "outwit" might be stronger?

Shows the game nicely

Plain, but has an elegant air

The pictures are technically fine, but there are only a few of them and they are just different views of the same game state. It would be nice to see a photo of a game at an earlier state. A picture showing everything that comes in the box is a good option as well.

Good concise summary of the game. Emphasis on points ("prevent the other players from getting points," "Can you be the one to end up with the most points?") feels a bit dry and clinical.

Not technically flawed, but underwhelming nonetheless. With no narration and no actual animation, it can be hard to follow the flow of the video and work out what you're supposed to understand from each picture. Text on some slides is small and feels like too much to get through. I don't feel like someone new to the game would come away with a good understanding of play.