|
jmzero posted:I think it's worth noting a small success story on this front. The Dragon's Hoard kickstarter had a stretch goal adding "Damsels" - hot women that the player could essentially capture/collect for points. Lady Gaga (the SA user, probably not the singer) contacted the guy, he wrote back a very reasonable response, and then made some legitimate changes to his plans. The Dragons now collect hostages instead of damsels - and the guy hostages are just as powerless/passive as the women. I quite like this illustration, it's so different than the norm:
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
The General posted:Whelp, the PC movement has ruined rescuing damsels in distress, because it's twenty loving thirteen and damsels being in distress is sexist as gently caress I really hope you're being sarcastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
jmzero posted:I think it's worth noting a small success story on this front. The Dragon's Hoard kickstarter had a stretch goal adding "Damsels" - hot women that the player could essentially capture/collect for points. Lady Gaga (the SA user, probably not the singer) contacted the guy, he wrote back a very reasonable response, and then made some legitimate changes to his plans. The Dragons now collect hostages instead of damsels - and the guy hostages are just as powerless/passive as the women. I quite like this illustration, it's so different than the norm: That's an awful change. Seriously people get up in arms, how often in old tales did Dragons hold princes or guys hostage? It's like the go to classic heroic epic tale that the Dragon kidnaps the Princess and the Knight has to go save her. I'm all for equality but If he wanted to toss some "Princes" along side "Princesses" it would be far less offensive that just "hostages". Dragons don't take hostages. That just sounds dumb to say. I hope the same Crusaders for Female equality go after pretty much every anime game ever made with such zeal. Why start with such minor quibbles when there's real sexist poo poo out there that seems to go ignored. edit: Ok from the looks of the kickstarter it looks like he just added in the Princes, and didn't remove the name Damsel. So if the intent was just to get him to add guys as well as girls that need to be objects of rescuing I can live with that, no problem. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:That's an awful change. Seriously people get up in arms, how often in old tales did Dragons hold princes or guys hostage? It's like the go to classic heroic epic tale that the Dragon kidnaps the Princess and the Knight has to go save her. I'm all for equality but If he wanted to toss some "Princes" along side "Princesses" it would be far less offensive that just "hostages". drat. Real food for thought here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:That's an awful change. Seriously people get up in arms, how often in old tales did Dragons hold princes or guys hostage? It's like the go to classic heroic epic tale that the Dragon kidnaps the Princess and the Knight has to go save her. I'm all for equality but If he wanted to toss some "Princes" along side "Princesses" it would be far less offensive that just "hostages". Also I don't understand the first paragraph: you rail against the subversion of the "damsel in distress" trope, but then you say that it's okay if princes replace princesses and the problem that you have is with the word 'hostages'? A confusing post. EDIT: A nice, I missed the edit, good job on the good old "there are much bigger fights OUT THERE!!!" derail, haven't seen that one in a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
PaybackJack's and The General's posts: no better evidence against SA sexism exceptionalism
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Ok I think our group despises 'trading.' I can't word it better than that, sorry. Does Castles of Burgandy and Agricola have trading between players? Basically "Hey, we're not on a team or anything but help me win/help each other win just because"
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Someone go whisper "Kingdom Death" in Florence's ear and watch him have a heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
PikaPuff posted:Ok I think our group despises 'trading.' I can't word it better than that, sorry. Does Castles of Burgandy and Agricola have trading between players? Basically "Hey, we're not on a team or anything but help me win/help each other win just because" I haven't played Agricola in a long while but I don't remember anything like that barring intentionally giving up certain spots on the board to help other players, but obviously that type of thing is possible in every single game ever so I think you're clear there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Yeah, why subvert gender stereotypes when tales written in much more sexist times always had princesses being rescued?!! Ok, I thought he was saying that the point was replacing the damsels in the game with guys and calling them hostages. Which is think is a lame change. Now you can rescue Damsels and Princes, which is fine. I thought the issue was needing to change the name from Damsel to Hostage which is such a minor quibble to me and not something that I think is particularly offensive, not to mention it's extremely iconic. If you're really offended by he concept of a "damsel in distress", then we're on different pages. Adding in guys as well as girls; totally fine with that. I'm not trying to derail but I find it interesting the battles that these people pick. I think going after the whole loving genre of anime would be a much better use of your time if you want to try and change something that I would agree is detrimental to females. Mofabio posted:PaybackJack's and The General's posts: no better evidence against SA sexism exceptionalism Also nice job calling me sexist because I don't agree with a strict interpretation of how the female gender should or should not be portrayed. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Nice job on calling me out on me calling you sexist, which I didn't do because I don't know a drat thing about you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
PikaPuff posted:Ok I think our group despises 'trading.' I can't word it better than that, sorry. Does Castles of Burgandy and Agricola have trading between players? Basically "Hey, we're not on a team or anything but help me win/help each other win just because" There is no trading in Castles of Burgundy or Agricola.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Man, this "anime" thing sounds really hosed up. I trust that it isn't an absurdly huge media industry complete with massive advertising campaigns that is in many ways a deeply ingrained cultural icon, and that everyone who is interested in board games is also equally invested in it and thus would be motivated to put forth the time and energy needed to evoke change (since humans aren't automatons and are driven by interests and passions)? Because otherwise it'd be like you were drawing some weird parallel that doesn't actually mean jack poo poo, but I assume that isn't what you're doing here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Nice job on calling me out on me calling you sexist, which I didn't do because I don't know a drat thing about you. Sorry wasn't finished editing. Countblanc posted:Man, this "anime" thing sounds really hosed up. I trust that it isn't an absurdly huge media industry complete with massive advertising campaigns that is in many ways a deeply ingrained cultural icon, and that everyone who is interested in board games is also equally invested in it and thus would be motivated to put forth the time and energy needed to evoke change (since humans aren't automatons and are driven by interests and passions)? Because otherwise it'd be like you were drawing some weird parallel that doesn't actually mean jack poo poo, but I assume that isn't what you're doing here. I was referring to anime board games. Did this poster also email the Tuanto Core people or that latest kickstarted with the scantily clad figures? It just seems like there's bigger targets that are far more damaging then try to change the idea of "damsels in distress". PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I understand the criticism about the german pun names, but when you criticise the design, do you mean the design of the rules or the design of the art/theme? For games like Bohnanza, which are obviously done rules over theme, I usually don't care about the theme as long as the rules hold up, which is why I like Bohnanza. I like the gameplay itself. I like it a lot, actually. It's the kind of game I'll suggest to people who don't normally play games - it's quick to pick up, and it's fun from the first play. But in those situations, the theme actually hurts it. The artwork suggests that its a kid's game, the concept of "bean farmer" sounds distinctly un-fun, and the theme doesn't make explaining or understanding the rules any easier. I play with a lot of new gamers, who can be easily turned off. I think it's important that a game look like fun before you ever start playing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
So, Star Trek The Original Series DBG. Horribly incomplete rulebook, lovely proofreading on the cards, but overall I'm having more fun with it than the two TNG games. Not being able to upgrade your starship seems to be a positive difference and helps with the runaway leader problem. There's also more interaction between players, even if it simply boils down to discarding a card, gaining an Ensign, or taking some damage. Mission goals and rewards are still kind of broken, but I feel there's less reason to avoid hitting the space deck each turn to try for a clearable mission. You don't get anything like Q coming out of nowhere and killing you to end your turn cold. Draft missions are nice (everyone starts with pick 2 of 3 dealt missions) but I think I'll be houseruling out the missions that can be cleared with 3+ cards in hand or 3+ characters because those are basically free points with your beginning decks and no-brainers to keep. It's a solid game, not up to the standards of Dominion or Ascension or even Legendary, but it's serviceable if the Star Trek theme adds value for you. Just make sure to track down the FAQ of questions answered by the dev so you know poo poo like how to resolve battles for people not on their turns. SilverMike fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
wafflesnsegways posted:I like the gameplay itself. I like it a lot, actually. It's the kind of game I'll suggest to people who don't normally play games - it's quick to pick up, and it's fun from the first play. But in those situations, the theme actually hurts it. The artwork suggests that its a kid's game, the concept of "bean farmer" sounds distinctly un-fun, and the theme doesn't make explaining or understanding the rules any easier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I was referring to anime board games. Did this poster also email the Tuanto Core people or that latest kickstarted with the scantily clad figures? It just seems like there's bigger targets that are far more damaging then try to change the idea of "damsels in distress". Which anime board games? Aside from that silly card game Tanto Cuore you mention, what else is out there in English? echoMateria fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:Which anime board games? Aside from that silly card game Tanto Cuore you mention, what else is out there in English?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
^^^ That's the one. echoMateria posted:Which anime board games? Aside from that silly card game Tanto Cuore you mention, what else is out there in English? The Resistance: Avalon anime promo comes to mind. The guy who did Tanto Cuore also has some other awful kick starter recently as well that I tried to block from my mind that was offensive to me, and I generally don't get offended by poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:The Resistance: Avalon anime promo comes to mind. The guy who did Tanto Cuore also has some other awful kick starter recently as well that I tried to block from my mind that was offensive to me, and I generally don't get offended by poo poo. You are thinking of Kanzume Goddess. It was gross. I think there was also a CMON mecha project that had female pilots in various states of undress. Other anime boardgames in general include Shadow Hunters, which I can't recall anything particularly egregious, but your character tends to be hidden through most of the game so it's not like I'm looking, some chess-like boardgame whose name is really hard to remember because it is gobbledegook to the nth degree, and various games in the BattleCon universe, whose designer tries to stay away from cheesecake, despite being anime as all hell. I think people here did actually try to say something against Kingdom Death, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
I'm on the fence about buying Sentinels of the Multiverse: Enhanced Edition. I am planning to buy The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game when FFG rolls out the new print, apparently it is out of print at the moment, and aside from the wildly different theme, it seems they both play somewhat similarly. I wonder if we'd get more mileage out of LotR. Any advice on this?
echoMateria fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
With Tanto Cuore being mentioned, I just recalled... I have a friend who's a bit of an anime fan, who has statues of elves in his bedroom. I mentioned Tanto Cuore as a comment about just how disturbing the concept of that game is and I'm afraid he was genuinely interested 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:I'm on the fence about buying Sentinels of the Multiverse: Enhanced Edition. I am planning to buy The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game when FFG rolls out the new print, apparently it is out of print at the moment, and aside from the wildly different theme, it seems they both play somewhat similarly. I wonder if we'd get more mileage out of LotR and I should wait for it and in the meanwhile order something else instead of Sentinels. Any advice on this? I think if you just went base for base, you would probably get more out of Sentinels. It's also a lot more friendly to picking up and playing with people. Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, is a more substantial game, but it's also a lot pricier given the number of expansions and whatnot out. You would probably also need to deckbuild, which means that you either have to give your friends decks to play or they would need to look up/make their own decks. Both are really good co-op games that minimize QBing since it is really annoying to have to explain exactly what you can do to all the other players, which allows you to strategize in broader terms, ie "I can get rid of those enemies this turn," or "I can heal you this turn." Edit: nimby posted:With Tanto Cuore being mentioned, I just recalled... Introduce your friend to Maid RPG and play in his game. Because you're a good friend, right? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:You are thinking of Kanzume Goddess. It was gross. I think there was also a CMON mecha project that had female pilots in various states of undress. Yomi would be another example, although I will say that it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Dominion posted:Do you think there's some magical force preventing women from liking games? Or do you think maybe the industry is a boys club and if they pulled back on that a bit they'd get more female fans? I don't believe in some unified "industry" being sexist or not. I see many cooperative games doing whatever possible to be inclusive and even handed in the roles of genders/races. I see the same thing with a ton of other game types. Then there are some people who have some artistic vision where women have giant boobs and dudes have giant dongs and they market that to a certain audience as well. A big part of 'fantasy' in particular involves sexuality or role play. If some guy wants to pursue a game with giant boobed women and muscle bound heroes that are as far from the (male) creator's body type as humanly possible, whatever, and if some other guy likes really overweight women with 3 asses and a scrotum under their chin then whatever. Everyone has a line to cross, where design and artistic vision clashes with decency. A game that would subjugate all female characters as part of the game would cross a line for many people, enough to necessitate a change in the design of the game. However, what do we say about a game where the female lead is sexy a la a Xena, but also powerful and taking a role typically occupied by males? I mean, people are always going to be offended, and I feel like comparing some at best mildly offensive (to some) games and components with games that are really just awkward seems disingenuous. Shammypants fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:However, what do we say about a game where the female lead is sexy a la a Xena, but also powerful and taking a role typically occupied by males? Fortunately there are many, many educated people who are debating those exact questions. I suggest picking up the very excellent book Enlightened Sexism by Susan Douglas, a professor at the University of Michigan, for a read on that exact question and several related ones!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Fortunately there are many, many educated people who are debating those exact questions. I suggest picking up the very excellent book Enlightened Sexism by Susan Douglas, a professor at the University of Michigan, for a read on that exact question and several related ones! Respectfully, no thanks. While I have a passing interest in discussing these issues, I am just being honest when I say I have little to no interest in reading recommended books on the subject. If there is a main idea you are willing to share, then I would entertain it and consider it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Well this is getting wildly off topic, but the take away from the book (or at least that part of it, the section on Jersey Shore-style television is much more scathing) is that stuff can be both good and bad, and there's no reason to react to criticisms about something by assuming the person is attacking the item as a whole. Xena was not only cool and strong, but as the book shows, she was also a cultural icon for many lesbians at the time, in no small part due to her relationship with Gabrielle. She kicks butt almost as well as her male counterpart Hercules (whom the previously mentioned lesbians typically rooted against, since it was no secret that Xena was slaying Herc's hydra off camera), and many other female characters in the show have their own strengths like Gabrielle's silver tongue. That all said, while lesbians and a few women were definitely a part of Xena's audience, they were in no way the primary demographic or the ones actually producing the show. Lucy Lawless' bondage outfits weren't a happy accident, and the violence against her was heavily sexualized (this is actually a very weird phenomenon in many medias, documented by many gender scholars, with Jackson Katz's documentary Tough Guise being my favorite look at it). Critiques of shows like Xena focus on these and similar issues not because the entire product is bad or ruined because of them, but because those are the areas that should be examined closely through the lens of feminist theory and many other academic jargon theories which would bore you to tears if this wasn't a passion of yours (fortunately it's one of mine so you have people like me to do the leg work for you and summarize a 300-some page book into two paragraphs!). It'd be really tiresome to have to preface every criticism with a laundry list of positive qualities a product or item has so everyone knows you aren't attacking the entire thing, so unless you think someone is arguing in bad faith its typically dismissive to tell them to focus their efforts elsewhere or argue that enough progress has been made in this department for now or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
This is an interesting subject that also highly relates to the other three things I love and talk about on SA; Comic Books, Pro Wrestling, and Video Games. One thing I think is an interesting point is that people often look at it from the perspective of the viewer, in comics for instance some artists just love to draw half naked women, so it's not like there's always a marketing "sex sells" attitude, but also what's fun for the artist. Out here in Taiwan I found a local girl who does sexy anime drawings and is a private artist. She isn't trying to cash in on horny asian boys for huge profits, she herself likes the subject matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
This past weekend I played a game of Mansions of Madness with me as the Overlord and two other people playing Investigators. I really feel like I need to houserule the number of Actions that a player gets each turn and how the event cards work in certain scenarios. It felt like the two Investigators had no chance at all when I could drop monsters, while they had to split up to find the clues. We played the Fall of the House of Lynch scenario, and my win condition was that I run out of event cards while the Investigator win condition was they had to kill a zombie with 13 hp. They had trouble killing a regular zombie with 5 hp. While everyone had fun, we got to the point where the Investigator objective was unattainable in the amount of time that was left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
SilverMike posted:but I think I'll be houseruling out the missions that can be cleared with 3+ cards in hand or 3+ characters because those are basically free points with your beginning decks and no-brainers to keep. You do realize that if a mission/event has a " | " between the conditions, it means AND, right? Yeah, that's another poor not well explained design decision, but all of the missions you are referring to have more then one condition to complete. For instance one I can't remember the name of is "GOAL: 5+ Speed | 3 cards in hand" basically meaning you need to produce 5 or more speed using 2 or 1 card. Not so easy anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
...what the hell. Who uses | to mean AND? That's stupid. The closest thing I can think of is NAND in a certain mathematical context and NAND sure as poo poo isn't AND. I mean, ok, I should have read the whole FAQ, but goddamn why would I expect | to mean AND? Edit: Since not everyone is a programmer, | means OR in languages such as C++ and Java, so it's a natural mistake to make when the rulebook doesn't ever define the symbol |. SilverMike fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
I watched the WatchItPlayed on Legendary which looks pretty awesome. Browsing around Amazon today, though, I saw a DC-themed deck-builder but haven't seen any reviews of it. Anyone know anything about it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
MonkeyMaker posted:I watched the WatchItPlayed on Legendary which looks pretty awesome. Browsing around Amazon today, though, I saw a DC-themed deck-builder but haven't seen any reviews of it. Anyone know anything about it? I remember reading a comparison (no clue where I found it though) that explained that the Legendary game has a much more intense setup/breakdown, and deeper mechanics than the DC Game; the DC game on the other hand, has just enough stuff variety that the Heroes could become significantly different (and the game is easily expandable)...or something like that. Not that that means much without context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
quote:Introduce your friend to Maid RPG and play in his game. Because you're a good friend, right? Yeah sure. Also, Richard Garfield played that deckbuilding game on one of his podcasts, and had generally good things to say about it (gameplay wise, at least). What, are you going to argue with Richard Bloody Garfield? You can't let yourself be turned off just because you find the theme horribly offensive. You're above those kinds of things. You should go buy it. quote:damsel's/etc... My bad for the lack of clarity in my previous post - I didn't summarize the changes he made very well, and I'm to blame for at least some of the resulting tussle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
I actually like Tanto Coure for 1v1 more than Dominion or any other deckbuilder really, but it's a lot worse for 3+. If you have sleeves you can be cool like me and insert fake card art too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
So got to play Battle Cry 150th Anniversary Edition today, after ordering it from MilSims in late December as a January present. Game is fantastic, I managed to lose the first Bull Run as the Union by undercomitting early, and relying on understrength units to last more than was reasonable. Didn't have time to swap sides, and I can't wait to get it on the table again. We almost missed the bit at the front where the silhouttes aren't actually how many figures are supposed to be on the board. One question, do Generals have a use other than when you get a leadership-esque card?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
quote:...DC Deckbuilder and Legendary... We've played both of these a reasonable amount, as we have some big comic fans. Here's my thoughts: DC Deckbuilder is a really unambitious game - even its title screams "low effort". There's a sad, boring lineup of 5 cards to buy that draws from a single "everything" deck, and there's a "supervillain" pile. When someone buys a super-villain, the next super-villain does its boilerplate deckbuilding "attack" (discard, gain a wound, blah, blah, blah). Each player plays as a superhero (Superman, Batman, etc..) with some drowsy special ability (and these aren't well balanced, either). The game pretty much writes itself, assuming the writer was given instructions something like "make the safest, most generic deckbuilding game you can". There's nothing really wrong, although it feels very samey from game to game (there's no varying setup, just a big deck) - and beyond figuring out some basic plan for each character I don't see much more to playing it "well". Most turns you don't really have much real choice - too often you literally have no choice. It works. It's good for a few games. It's also a bit odd: the game is supposed to be expandable, the first game in a new engine... but the cards won't work with any variance in theme. For example: Superman gets bonuses when you play "Superpowers" - and the card types and abilities are often very specific like that. It would have been easy to make the card types generic so they'd allow for crossover games in the future, but they didn't. Legendary is a fair bit more ambitious. There's 4500 mini-decks for the varying villains and heroes (which naturally, you buy with two different resources - which we call power pellets and scratches, produced in your starter deck by SHIELD agents "poo poo" and "turd" respectively). You only use a subset of these (and you also pick a different super-nemesis dude and scheme) each game, and that makes for a respectable amount of variety. Lots of the cards have little "combo" icons that give you bonuses if you've played cards with the same little icons previously that turn. Some of this works really well, and there's some good ideas floating around in there. There's often legitimate choices about what to buy. What really hurts Legendary for me is the semi-coop stuff. How it has played out for us is that sometimes everyone loses the game really early (some of the villains/schemes can get out of hand quickly, depending on draws and what's available to buy). Or everyone kind of gets their decks going and super-powerful, and the super-nemesis-scheme stuff is largely irrelevant for the rest of the game. I think the idea is that there'll be a tension between "helping the group not lose" and "getting VP". In practice, it doesn't feel like this sort of decision comes up often or in an interesting way. I'm kind of OK that it doesn't. If you could make some ideal semi-coop game where everyone was playing chicken with each other to see who could do the least possible for the group without dooming everyone, I wouldn't want to play that game. The whole idea doesn't work for me. I don't feel any better finishing last in a game just because, well, at least Doctor Doom didn't win. To me, these are just competitive games where sometimes nobody gets to win, and that sucks. How satisfying is it when everyone loses because Bob and Doug misjudged stuff? If they're on my team and it's a co-op fine... but when they're not really on my team, that just isn't real satisfying. I think you'll likely know whether this whole semi-coop thing works for you as an idea... but either way it doesn't matter much for Legendary because, again, the game seldom feels like a semi-coop and seldom creates the kinds of decisions that would drive a semi-coop (not never, but seldom). I'll admit sometimes it does make for good interactions, where you're cheering for your neighbor to get a clutch good draw - that can really add to a game experience, when it comes up like that. Anyways, I find it hard to get excited about either of these games... but Legendary is at least somewhat interesting and varied. If the theme is a positive for you, I think it's a reasonable pick. And DC Deckbuilder would work really well as an introductory game for someone who likes the comic books. It plays easily and quickly, and has a very low rules burden. jmzero fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
jmzero posted:If you could make some ideal semi-coop game where everyone was playing chicken with each other to see who could do the least possible for the group without dooming everyone, Golf scoring but you still have to win. Use a henchmen/scheme/villain combo that forces you to have to deal with people going through the city or get slammed somehow and you might end up with an interesting bunch of decisions. I'll report back on how that works out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 08:34
|
|