|
Betrayal models a horror movie well? I haven't seen too many horror movies that start with a series of unrelated spooky stuff happening and then when the true evil is revealed the college athlete instantly caps it in the head with a revolver. Or all the heroes get instantly slain. The End.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
If you guys like games where you struggle to survive, you should try Navajo Wars. Three unique scenarios of misery 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:If you guys like games where you struggle to survive, you should try Navajo Wars. Three unique scenarios of misery Bought a copy that's coming tomorrow. Feel like a kid waiting for Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Bought a copy that's coming tomorrow. Feel like a kid waiting for Christmas. Miserable, miserable Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Yeah Navajo Wars is really good, tough and doesn't ever really feel unfair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:You could go in my direction - buy almost everything, end up trying nothing. This is me and I'm currently trying to reduce my ~650 game collection to 400. It's slow going trying to organize local-only trades, but shipping board games is way too expensive. (any bay area, ca goons want to trade, my BGG username is the same as this one) also, the new BGG redesign in progress looks...pretty good! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:If you guys like games where you struggle to survive, you should try Navajo Wars. Three unique scenarios of misery I am a terrible Navajo leader. I'll try giving it another go sometime in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
I'd agree that a game should be designed so that players feel as though they have a fighting chance. But from past experience I know at least some people consider that to mean "making correct/optimal moves should never result in a loss/setback" which I don't personally agree with. I can see though how some people feel "it's possible to not make mistakes and still lose" just has no place in their games, period.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Scyther posted:Betrayal models a horror movie well? I haven't seen too many horror movies that start with a series of unrelated spooky stuff happening and then when the true evil is revealed the college athlete instantly caps it in the head with a revolver. Or all the heroes get instantly slain. The End. Plenty of Horror movies end with all the protagonists dieing, that's one of the better features of them. With a "normal" movie you know the good guys will win in the end, there is no tension. With Horror the good guys could win, or not, you don't know until the movie is done! Tekopo posted:Yeah, sure, but these are still games in the end and a win condition has to feel achievable. Maybe it is difficult and unpredictable, but that's the job of the game designer: he has to get across a game that is both fitting to the theme that he is attempting to achieve and an achievable goal that players can feel that they are in the grasp of achieving during most of the time they play. It's why difficulty settings are a good thing in games: you start with something that the players can achieve after being experienced with the game and then build up the experience by making it harder and harder subsequently. Letting the difficulty be down the the whims of fate is, in my opinion, bad game design. I can see why lots of people might think that way, a "game" should be winnable if its going to be a game. I guess I just disagree fundamentally, I think it's fine for a board game to generate an unwinnable scenario if it adds to the theme (assuming I am playing the game for theme). You are right that RPGs are a better medium for that, and I do enjoy them quite a bit. However I got into board games because our group was just too lazy for anyone to DM a game of D&D any more. I wanted to recapture that RPG experience in a self contained system, that didn't require a DM, and the kinds of games I like reflect that. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
There are DMless RPG systems, though! The one game of Fiasco I played very much felt like a proper RPG, with almost everyone coming to a nasty end one way or another, but it's not a board game and doesn't try to be. Whereas actual coop board games, even if a given setup is functionally unwinnable, you should still feel like what you're doing determines how well you do (with taking risks obviously resulting in good or bad depending on luck), even if it does not bring a win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Plenty of Horror movies end with all the protagonists dieing, that's one of the better features of them. With a "normal" movie you know the good guys will win in the end, there is no tension. With Horror the good guys could win, or not, you don't know until the movie is done! I was specifically complaining about the very common thing where the game ends one or two turns after the haunt is revealed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I can see why lots of people might think that way, a "game" should be winnable if its going to be a game. I guess I just disagree fundamentally, I think it's fine for a board game to generate an unwinnable scenario if it adds to the theme (assuming I am playing the game for theme). So maybe it isn't difficulty that I have an issue with, but inconsistency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I think the term 'conveyance' is still a pretty good word when describing games that make the actions/thoughts that you are doing within the games feel like the actions/thoughts that you would be doing if you were actually in that situation. I came here to post this. I personally divide thematic praise into 2 categories with blatantly divisive language: flavor text and conveyance (but I might switch to Theme Alloy). RC has flavor text. Arkham Horror has flavor text. Dominion has flavor text. Flavor text also refers to pictures. A gigantic problem is, as Countblanc has been saying, that idiots commonly confuse "the flavor text says zombies or spaceships more often than it says castles or farms" with the flavor text having any sort of leg up over any other flavor text. The term dripping with theme has actually unironically been used by reviewers, and it's always used to mean "there's a lot of flavor text, and the flavor is the one I've arbitrarily decided is more meaningful than others." Like, seriously, games that don't use Cthulhu flavor text are basically considered worse than abstract (see some mainstream reviews of Tragedy Looper). Theme Alloy is such a good goddamn phrase. Holy poo poo. Anyway, the core of conveyance with respect to a game's theme is that you believe what you're doing is what the game says you're doing. You don't have to be pantomiming all your characters' actions, but you should absolutely be in their mindset to the point where RPing the game and playing to win look identical to observers. Battlestar Galactica has conveyance. Space Alert has conveyance. Galaxy Trucker has conveyance. Final Attack! has conveyance. Netrunner has conveyance. There is an objective, fundamental difference in the execution of these games' themes, wherein removing the flavor text would not affect the narrative, setting, or player mindset due to a strong Theme Alloy that holds everything else together. It should be noted that this is the thing with FA! since the game currently has no art or flavor text of any kind and is still one of the most thematic games being played. (edit: the soundtrack counts, but the soundtrack is optional and I've tested it without) Additionally, "players have no control over the outcome" is nearly the most objective criticism you could make about a game. You keep saying that it's not, Kaddish, but I don't think you know what that words means, especially given that you agreed with the sentiment being expressed. It's just a fact that Robinson Crusoe plays itself more than it allows its players to, and in order to recommend the game you have to warn people to brace themselves for precisely that sort of thing to happen. Of course, it's 2015, and we don't need to lower our standards to that level anymore-- there are plenty of other games to play that don't have that problem. Broken Loose fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:So maybe it isn't difficulty that I have an issue with, but inconsistency.  Different strokes for different folks. I would personally never try to get anyone to play Robinson with me, just like I would never both trying to get a person to watch me play Barbarian Prince. I find that "hidden difficulty" in Robinson adds to the theme as well, you never quite know what sort of island you are shipwrecked on until you go out and explore. Maybe its full of bananas, and wild pigs, and fresh water. Maybe it's full of panthers and poisonous berries, you don't know until you start exploring.I guess I like that it really simulates an episode of "Naked and Afraid", I'm a sucker for those extreme survival reality shows. You never quite know how they will do until they are there for a bit. Scyther posted:I was specifically complaining about the very common thing where the game ends one or two turns after the haunt is revealed. That's true, it can end like that. But I mean, setting up a game of Betrayal takes about 5 second, you can just start a new game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Additionally, "players have no control over the outcome" is nearly the most objective criticism you could make about a game. You keep saying that it's not, Kaddish, but I don't think you know what that words means, especially given that you agreed with the sentiment being expressed. It's just a fact that Robinson Crusoe plays itself more than it allows its players to, and in order to recommend the game you have to warn people to brace themselves for precisely that sort of thing to happen. Of course, it's 2015, and we don't need to lower our standards to that level anymore-- there are plenty of other games to play that don't have that problem. I think it's very curious that you accuse me of not knowing the definition of a word and then use it incorrectly. You can say something is an objective fact but it doesn't make it so. For example, your opinion is that Robinson Crusoe "plays itself more than it allows its players to" but this doesn't make it a fact and despite the variance in the game I disagree with it. I'm not saying it's impossible for this to happen in a game of RC - or any number of other co-ops with variance - but a blanket statement like that is kind of ridiculous. I guess if you can provide data that players literally have no control over the outcome of a game of Robinson Crusoe it would be an objective statement but I don't see that happening. Edit - I know this is getting into pedantic territory but this is exactly what I was talking about before - providing opinions about a game and presenting them as facts. Kaddish fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:That's true, it can end like that. But I mean, setting up a game of Betrayal takes about 5 second, you can just start a new game. This is an unacceptable thing to say about any game that takes longer than 5 minutes to play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:This is an unacceptable thing to say about any game that takes longer than 5 minutes to play. Plus, a lot of people consider the exploration phase to be, in essence, setup, so no, it does not take 5 seconds to set up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I think that's gonna be a matter of personal taste. If I play an island survival game, I don't want to get into a pleasure cruise island where monkeys peel and feed me grapes while fanning me with palm leaves Robinson Crusoe is supposed to be a "catch-all" island survival game. Only one of the scenarios is based off of "Robinson Crusoe" specifically, there are others including the "Robinson Family" which is supposed to be based on Swiss Family Robinson, a movie that's exactly how you describe, with tree houses and monkey butlers and all manor of ridiculous stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2b9MQ7vGL4
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Scyther posted:I was specifically complaining about the very common thing where the game ends one or two turns after the haunt is revealed. Yeah, this. Nobody goes to watch a horror movie wondering "I wonder if this movie is going to end in 30 minutes on an abrupt anticlimax like the last horror movie I watched." Betrayal's implementation of randomness works against its theme as often as it works towards it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
I enjoy RC enough for what it is even though I don't really consider it a great game. However, it's expansion Voyage of the Beagle is actually a really neat idea and theme. It's missions are set up as if you are along with Darwin on his expeditions. To me it was an unexpected shift for the game and I thought it was pretty delightful. The rules are still a mess and some of the scenarios are pretty bad though, don't get me wrong. Great components though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
You know I was playing through the newish Wolfenstein prequel the other day and there was one german soldier that was criticizing another one's grammar. The game actually had a real grammar nazi.Rutibex posted:Robinson Crusoe is supposed to be a "catch-all" island survival game. Only one of the scenarios is based off of "Robinson Crusoe" specifically, there are others including the "Robinson Family" which is supposed to be based on Swiss Family Robinson, a movie that's exactly how you describe, with tree houses and monkey butlers and all manor of ridiculous stuff: Yeah one of them is basically the movie, the rest are scattered scenarios about haunted islands and volcanos and poo poo. Most of them are not terrible in context of the game, but the game is extremely punishing about almost everything, and while I do enjoy not-walks in the park for my coop games, there is almost nothing in the game that makes the situation better. It's like Ignacy said how can we make everyone even more miserable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
But that's what I'm wondering: is only that Swiss family Robinson scenario inconsistent or are they all are? if the games that aren't meant to be walks in the park potentially too easy due to randomness, isn't that inconsistent with the scenario? I don't know enough about the game which is why I'm asking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
I feel like Rutibex has a good point with dividing games into "more puzzly" and "more thematic". Obviosuly, it's all a continuum. Or actually, an X/Y-plot thingie. Theme conveyance can be high or low (BSG vs Ingenious to name some extremes), just as logical deductability/predictableness (not quite sure what to call it) can be high or low (say, Tigris & Euphrates versus Exploding Kittens). Obviously, sometimes things match up in a satisfying way, and we get Space Alert and everyone is happy. But for the majority posters in this thread, the important thing is that the logic levels never drop below some arbitrary (and probably fuzzy) level. And that is fine, but it's not all there is to gaming. Rutibex and Kaddish are both fine with dropping a whole lot of logicalness if the theme conveyance is high. To me, that is a perfectly fine prioritization of stuff you want to get from games, even if my own tastes are different. And theme as in "the thing the game is about" can influence where on my X/Y-plot a game is. RC would, as has been described, be lower on the logicness simply because being predictable doesn't fit with the theme. But you also sometimes want that feeling and/or that setting, so really, games like that have their place. Obviously there are bad games like Exploding Kittens and CAH, which are low on any and all scales. But that's a different thing from the current discussion A game can objectively have more or less player agency, but player agency isn't the only worthwhile metric. Making all the right choices and getting screwed over anyway can be okay, if you feel like the experience is still worth it, just like playing Keyflower can still be worthwhile even though you aren't really feeling the struggle of the early settlers or whatever. tl;dr: Every game (that is not CAH) has its own merits, and judging RC by T&E's standards is stupid. Ps: Please be posting minority posters, even if you hate Mage Knight and Space Alert while loving Arkham Horror. More opinions is always better, just disregard the overly negative regulars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Huh, I guess they are making a Big Trouble in Little China Legendary Encounters game. This is getting bought so loving hard it isn't even funny. Jack Burton vs Aliens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Anyone else feel like there's a niche out there for fairly basic playthroughs and not reviews? There are about a billion reviewers out there and a handful of good ones, but once you actually want to see the game in action the field drops into murky water pretty quickly. All I want is to watch some video playthroughs hosted by people who aren't turning it up to 11 or just generally being obnoxious. Maybe it's me who's the jerk but dang, people aren't watching your playthrough to learn if you'd be fun to hang out with, but to see if the game is worth dropping the  on. Then again, maybe there's no pleasing me because while I like the "Watch it played" videos, the dude is kind of unnerving.I tried firing up a video for the new Eldritch Horror expansion and the dude was so over the top that I had to turn it off. Tried watching a playthrough of Forbidden Stars and it immediately put me off on the game and about put me off the hobby forever (not really, but the shame ...so heavy). It's maybe a side effect of that type of time-heavy/grognardy game, but dang.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
BonHair posted:RC would, as has been described, be lower on the logicness simply because being predictable doesn't fit with the theme. I don't buy this excuse. Being predictable doesn't fit the theme of Space Alert at all, and yet resolution is almost 100% deterministic and a group that can coordinate quickly enough will virtually always be able to find a solution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Taran_Wanderer posted:Are you playing a six-player game? How many people are new to the game? Do you know what Power you're playing? Probably 5, maybe 6. Everyone's new, the owner has played a turn with his girlfriend to test the waters, but I think I'm going to be the one explaining it. I've already gone through the manual, but without owning the game, it's a bit harder to grasp all the bits working together. At least Here I Stand has a good manual to learn from, even if it's 40 pages. We already have set aside about a day for it, because it'll also be used as socializing time due to the owner's birthday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:But that's what I'm wondering: is only that Swiss family Robinson scenario inconsistent or are they all are? if the games that aren't meant to be walks in the park potentially too easy due to randomness, isn't that inconsistent with the scenario? I don't know enough about the game which is why I'm asking. Well no, the Swiss family Robinson scenario isn't specifically calibrated to be "easy", but there is the potential for that in every scenario.  I will also admit that I like the Robinson Crusoe game a bit because my own last name is in fact Robinson, and my family watched Swiss Family Robinson every Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Campbell posted:All I want is to watch some video playthroughs hosted by people who aren't turning it up to 11 or just generally being obnoxious. Maybe it's me who's the jerk but dang, people aren't watching your playthrough to learn if you'd be fun to hang out with, but to see if the game is worth dropping the Unfortunately that kind of video doesn't really exist since acting zany is what gets the clicks. Look at any popular Let's Play channel... all unbearably annoying. In regards to WIP, is it Rodney's subtle canadian accent that you find off-putting? Cerds
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Rodney smiles too much. It's upsetting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
BonHair posted:I feel like Rutibex has a good point with dividing games into "more puzzly" and "more thematic". Obviosuly, it's all a continuum. Or actually, an X/Y-plot thingie. Theme conveyance can be high or low (BSG vs Ingenious to name some extremes), just as logical deductability/predictableness (not quite sure what to call it) can be high or low (say, Tigris & Euphrates versus Exploding Kittens). Obviously, sometimes things match up in a satisfying way, and we get Space Alert and everyone is happy. But for the majority posters in this thread, the important thing is that the logic levels never drop below some arbitrary (and probably fuzzy) level. And that is fine, but it's not all there is to gaming. Rutibex and Kaddish are both fine with dropping a whole lot of logicalness if the theme conveyance is high. To me, that is a perfectly fine prioritization of stuff you want to get from games, even if my own tastes are different. Again though, the problem is that games like Betrayal have poor theme conveyance. The randomness in Betrayal doesn't tell you what kind of horror movie you're going to get which would be fine, instead it tells you whether you're going to get a horror movie at all or instead some sort of Adult Swim skit about a priest getting possessed by a demon in a spooky mansion and immediately getting shanked by a schoolgirl draped in enchanted swag, which is basically what happened during one of the first games of Betrayal I ever played. I was super excited to play it too because "a horror movie board game where you don't know who's going to become the bad guy and what the scenario will be until you play it" sounds loving sweet on paper, but the actual implementation of the randomness means that it's up in the air whether you're going to get the thematic experience you crave or whether you're going to get something that knocks you right out of it and leaves everyone around the table awkwardly going "well, uh, should we try that again?" There's good random and there's bad random, just like there's good conveyance and bad conveyance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:That's true, it can end like that. But I mean, setting up a game of Betrayal takes about 5 second, you can just start a new game. Everything until the haunt is just extended turn-based random setup masquerading as a game. You don't have any goal except getting stronger and there's no meaningful decision you can to make actively make yourself stronger, you just explore and hope for the best. If you find a room that grants an item, great, but you're just as likely to stumble into a room that dumps a negative event on your head. Sure there's a couple of rooms that give one-time stat increases the first time you visit them, and there's that Vault room where you can try a skill check to get two items, but going for the stat increases is not so much a decision as just optimal as there's no downside. The Vault you should probably always try for unless it's literally impossible for you to make the check. Scyther fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:I don't buy this excuse. Being predictable doesn't fit the theme of Space Alert at all, and yet resolution is almost 100% deterministic and a group that can coordinate quickly enough will virtually always be able to find a solution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Well no, the Swiss family Robinson scenario isn't specifically calibrated to be "easy", but there is the potential for that in every scenario. what is this? i peeled the onion and i just got more onion!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Rodney smiles too much. It's upsetting. Rodney is a hunky man and I told him that at Gencon. My friends and I have a inside joke about it, and I likely should have left it that way as it was awkward. We ended up talking about his videos. Great guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Well the unpredictability comes in due to not knowing what targets you get. And once they know what the danger is, Star Trek crews always find a solution Sure, but my point is that you can have a game where thematically things are unpredictable without sacrificing the puzzle element. Robinson Crusoe isn't uncontrollably random because the theme demanded it, it's uncontrollably random because the designer made it that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:But that's what I'm wondering: is only that Swiss family Robinson scenario inconsistent or are they all are? if the games that aren't meant to be walks in the park potentially too easy due to randomness, isn't that inconsistent with the scenario? I don't know enough about the game which is why I'm asking. No they all share the same basic difficulty - survival. You always need food, shelter, wood etc, and you will end up spending the great majority of your actions per round on acquiring them, and in order to do the actual scenario goal you have to take the risk of getting lovely events by rolling the dice you have to roll when you assign only one action token to a given action. The game is pretty brutal about your food basically rotting away over night, so food is a constant daily struggle, and every character consumes 1 food per day except the dog and other helper dude. The consequence for not having "shelter" is -1 HP per day, and it's hard to recover health. If weather starts up and you don't have higher roof levels (Shelter is y/n, but there is a roof, and palisade level), you will have to burn wood or furs each night to make up for the weather. Usually this is only in the last few rounds. Amusingly there is a cave tile that provides auto-shelter, but doesn't do anything about your roof level. You can slightly mitigate the risks by acquiring bonus action tokens through technology, but there's only so many of them and they can only be used once per day, and most of the tech slots per scenario are randomly allotted - AND you have to fulfill the conditions for making them, like supplying wood or food or having discovered a particular type of terrain. (Building the techs also takes up actions and you can get events from gambling on constructing tech) You can't win without doing all the survival stuff, and it all takes push your luck dice rolling in order to succeed. You aren't going to win if you go the safe route with everything by assigning two disks to something. Each player only gets two, and the whole food thing basically eats all those up if you go that route, so you won't ever get anything done that way. Dice essentially dictate what you do and experience will only go so far to mitigate that kind of thing. There's really only one thing that is a no brainer in the game, and it's exploring the island and uncovering the tiles, because you snag little bonus tokens that do things like +food or wood or weapon level or whatever. Its the only thing that really consistently pays off. Sloober fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Malloreon posted:This is me and I'm currently trying to reduce my ~650 game collection to 400. It's slow going trying to organize local-only trades, but shipping board games is way too expensive. Hmm, most board games ship for $12.00 USPS. USPS picks up the box for free. If you get paid through PayPal you can create a shipping label right there, otherwise got to USPS.com and create a shipping label there. I can't imagine anything much easier, and $12 is competitive, not like Gamesurplus's nearly $20. I live in LA and if I had to depend on local pick up/trade, I'd have a 800+ collection.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
Malloreon posted:This is me and I'm currently trying to reduce my ~650 game collection to 400. It's slow going trying to organize local-only trades, but shipping board games is way too expensive. Endgames in Oakland has their yearly auction thing. You only get store credit, which...kinda turns into a self perpetuating problem, but it's an option. But I feel ya, it's super hard to get rid of board games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 00:13
|
|
