|
Archenteron posted:I'm always the Duke, and you're always the Ambassador. I always have the princess and everyone always knows 
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Guys, get your pre-order for Loopin Chewie in early while you still can 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:The other thing is that the top 10 in MvC2 exist because the other 46 are redundant. There's no reason to play Rogue when Magneto does everything she does but better. There's no reason to play Ryu, Ken, Akuma, Dan, or Sakura, because Cyclops does everything they do but better. Cosmic's race balance isn't so simple-- in a game with the Loser (who can reverse fight outcomes) and the Masochist (who wants to lose fights), the Warrior (who levels up every time he participates in a fight and makes winning easier in the future) is completely screwed from the start. Race powers are all over the board, and while imbalances are apparent at times the real issue is that man races serve as hard counters to other races without concern for what the countered players will get to do in such a game outside of... well, getting their asses kicked. It's not so easy to just remove a bunch of races from Cosmic because the whole ecosystem is poisoned. This is just completely wrong. There's plenty the Warrior can do in such a situation. They might ultimately fail to get the right cards, but Cosmic is a casual poker game not a chess match, so it goes with the territory. You play the odds with the cards you have and hope for the best. All bluffing games reward luck over lying, particularly short ones, and not everyone is against an hour-long heavy filler game on principle. And it has nothing to do with Games Workshop. Cosmic isn't the auto-recommend it was 20 years ago, but there's a reason so many of the best designers cite it as an inspiration. Nobody who dismisses Cosmic out-of-hand can be considered a serious student of game design.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Sheriff of Nottingham is about as good as Splendor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Tippis posted:The closest I can think of off the top of my head is intro to boardgaming, but that's more about how the stereotypes about games aren't true any more. trigger warning: Labyrinth
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Cosmic isn't the auto-recommend it was 20 years ago, but there's a reason so many of the best designers cite it as an inspiration. Nobody who dismisses Cosmic out-of-hand can be considered a serious student of game design. Cosmic is definitely interesting and notable for its place in history, and in its time it was a thing that got a lot of people into serious board gaming in the first place. I don't think there's anything wrong with instantly dismissing it as a game to play for the sake of enjoyment in TYOOL 2015, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
No other game has the range of asymmetrical factions as CE with reasonable strategic depth. I don't play CE that often anymore, but there's nothing else that really fills that void. Note we usually play with alternate race selection methods that mitigate the hard-counter effects that crop up from time to time. EDIT: I guess Smallworld sort of has the same thing going for it, maybe that's why I like Smallworld a lot! Mince Pieface fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Mince Pieface posted:No other game has the range of asymmetrical factions as CE with reasonable strategic depth. I don't play CE that often anymore, but there's nothing else that really fills that void. Those games don't have much strategic depth at all, that's why they need all those asymmetric factions. Small World's biggest issue is that most of the asymmetry is super soft "+ 1 gold" stuff so it doesn't take long to realise you're making the same shallow decisions every turn for the whole game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Something I've noticed when it comes to game designers and gamers...this is in general, it applies to board games, video games, RPGs, etc...is that people seem to drastically overvalue asymmetry to the point where sub-par games often get high marks for providing loads of asymmetric options (which may be shallow or full of traps and broken options) and decent games without as much asymmetry get dogged for being "samey and boring."
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Mince Pieface posted:No other game has the range of asymmetrical factions as CE with reasonable strategic depth. I don't play CE that often anymore, but there's nothing else that really fills that void. Breadth is not depth, and strategic depth in a game of asymmetrical factions only counts if those factions actually employ different strategies. Like, yeah, some aliens may have different win conditions, but (picking three random ones from a wiki I found), how does a Human play significantly different from an Amoeba from a Warrior? Asymmetrical games should involve significantly different dynamics for each side (Twilight Struggle), and anything factional needs to have more than "slightly different gameplay". There's a reason fighting game characters tend to play significantly different from each other, why minis gamers identify as a "Menoth player" or "Eldar player". It's because players feel and are rewarded for picking an ingame identity and sticking to it, learning the nuances of their strengths and weaknesses. Cosmic Encounter's factions involve, by and large, the same basic gameplay for each with maybe a slight modification here and there. A reason to value this or that card more than another. Which, on its own, isn't awful. 7 Wonders involves the same concept, where different Wonders adjust the relative value of every card a nudge in each direction: Hanging Gardens might want more science--which rewards investing in depth--and want fewer military--because military wants the opposite kinds of resources and is a huge waste if you don't have enough. However, 7 Wonders nudges the cards in each direction. Sometimes by implication because one strategy becoming easier or more valuable reduces the appeal of some other strategies due to only getting 18-24 plays (expansions), and sometimes by simple devaluation--Temple of Artemis doesn't need money providing cards anywhere near as much, anything that starts with a manufactured good likely will not find it worth it to draft a second. Cosmic Encounter doesn't do either of these, because you don't have as much choice when it comes to what's being valued. You draw cards when you need more. There's no real choice, as all of them will get played, so it doesn't matter if you value one card over another. There's nothing to make one player's planets more valuable than another's, either, and it doesn't matter because you don't get to choose who to attack. Choice is an essential element of any game, and Cosmic Encounter's factions simply don't significantly add to the choices you have as a player because you don't even have very many choices to begin with. There's also no depth in any of them, nothing to make you want to revisit them to try new strategies or face new challenges unless there's a particular toy you enjoy pressing the button on. Compare Dominion, of all things. Dominion has a similar number of Kingdom cards as Cosmic Encounter boasts races, and both acquire a tableau at the start dictating what changes are made to the game ahead of time. Yet, every Dominion card boasts depth. Chapel will always Chapel, but Chapel will play differently with Mint, with Baron, with Moneylender, with Witch....the list goes on. Cosmic Encounter can't boast that, as you don't have choices to be influenced by a variable setup. Again: breadth is not depth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
And then you have games like Kemet or Argent where players start off identical or almost so (Argent has some very minor asymmetry with starting spells and mage loadouts) but then everyone gradually accumulates a distinct asymmetrical loadout as the game progresses. There's no "red faction" and "blue faction" in Kemet, but over the course of the game one player may gear towards a White/Red mix to maximize casualty-generated prayer while that dude is going for a temple-holding strategy with Defensive Victory and Prescience while over there Bob wants as many Divine Intervention cards as he can manage, and by the end of the game you've created this personalized setup that grew over the course of play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Played my first game of Castles of Burgundy tonight with my wife. It's amazingly the first worker placement game we own, and I'm really glad I bought it. We both had a great time. My wife sometimes hesitates to play worker placement games because of the "too many possible decisions" issue a lot have (something like Caverna), but Castles actually isn't too bad about it. In the end she won by about 10 points, due to a huge number of points she received because of some knowledge tiles she picked up. I really can't think of anything bad about it. It has die rolls, but mitigates it enough through various systems that there was only really one turn that I felt a die roll left me in trouble, and even then I wouldn't have been had a played differently the turn before. Definitely looking forward to playing again. I also picked up Snake Oil at the same time, but haven't had a group to play it with yet. And after asking about Pathfinders Adventure Card Game in this thread a little bit ago...I forgot to cancel my Amazon order, so I guess I have that too. I don't like the "need" to buy tons of extra addons, really feels like a partial game because of it. I think it will be enjoyable enough for what we want out of it, but I'm not expecting much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Why does everyone I play Kemet with have some sort of brain disorder that makes them hate the game solely because it's possible to win a battle while losing more units than the loser
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Big Ol Marsh Pussy posted:Why does everyone I play Kemet with have some sort of brain disorder that makes them hate the game solely because it's possible to win a battle while losing more units than the loser To be fair I see how that can be counter-intuitive to people used to games like Risk where killing mans = more winning. When I teach Kemet I always, always emphasize when it comes to combat that the winning battles only cares about whose army is stronger than who, period. If someone looks askance at that I may try and explain things along the lines of "it's an ancient historical style battle with lots of shouting and shoving but comparatively few casualties, you aren't necessarily trying to kill them all, just force them out" regardless of how bollocks that might be, but so far I've been lucky that nobody I've played with has had a problem catching on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Something I've noticed when it comes to game designers and gamers...this is in general, it applies to board games, video games, RPGs, etc...is that people seem to drastically overvalue asymmetry to the point where sub-par games often get high marks for providing loads of asymmetric options (which may be shallow or full of traps and broken options) and decent games without as much asymmetry get dogged for being "samey and boring." The thing is, many people don't actually understand when asymmetry is in play. It comes into play with identity choices (race, country, character, class, weapons, roles, etc.), but it also comes into play with variability, with skill discrepency, your opponent's strategy, or simple logistical differences. Chess, for example, is an excellent example of asymmetry in a classic game. You take turns. Someone has to go first, and so that is the white player. That's asymmetry right there: white opening plays are different from black opening plays. That extends to the rest of the game as well. You and your opponent will gradually progress to a state where one is in a different position and has different options and threats to consider than another. That's asymmetry. Hell, that's the core of what many players want from an asymmetrical game. The problem with asymmetry is that people think they want asymmetrical games, when what they really want is identity. People don't want a large variety of options for balance reasons or because "more is better". They want the ability to say "This is my choice". "This is how I play", "I am a Menoth player", "I main Dr. Mario", "I usually roll up a wizard", "I like to play as the hot chick", "I'm a blue player"--these are all the kinds of statements people will make about a game because the game provides those options a player can align themselves with to establish their identity within the context of the game. Netrunner is an amazing example of this. You can not only identify as a "Corp player" or a "Runner player", but even a subfaction within those two asymmetric sides, and even a subsubfaction! That's one of the big contributors to Netrunner's popularity, and it's no accident these subsubfactional cards are "Identity cards" by the game's parlance. Players can look around and experiment and find the identity that works for them. Bad asymmetry comes about when breadth is added for the sake of breadth. Sure, you can take the Ghosts of Creuss or the Arborec, nothing could go wrong...and then you spend another hour on Twilight Imperium because you needed to look up a rules clarification on new races that were added not to freshen the game but because "players wanted more races". Or, Sentinels of the Multiverse, where new heroes are constantly added. A game where I play Mr. Fixer, Kai Tave plays Expatriette, Broken Loose plays Argent Adept, and Rutibex plays Tempest should play wildly differently from a game where I play Bunker, Kai Tave plays KNYFE, Broken Loose plays Nightmist, and Rutibex plays Legacy. They don't, though. Despite the varied options where each hero should have unique strengths to exploit and weaknesses to avoid, slight changes do not create any changes larger than whose picture is on the cards in your hand. Of course, it's quite possible to have identity without asymmetry stemming from that identity. Those with weak constitutions should avoid reading further. Monopoly. Yeah, I said it. In Monopoly you can play as a dog, a cannon, a boat, and whatever the hell they've added in newer editions (never mind licensed ones). Hell, if you've lost a piece, you can play as a button, a coin, a rock, whatever. Your identity is what you choose it to be, and the game is no worse for this fact. I mean, it's Monopoly, it's awful, but the game at least lets you choose your ingame representation without it hurting you, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the appeal of the game. Asymmetry without identity can work fine, as can asymmetry with identity, as can identity without asymmetry. The problem arises when players treat the two as identical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Big Ol Marsh Pussy posted:Why does everyone I play Kemet with have some sort of brain disorder that makes them hate the game solely because it's possible to win a battle while losing more units than the loser Because some people just don't understand that battles are not fought for attrition, but for strategic objectives, and these can and often are won at great absolute and relative numerical sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
Trasson posted:The problem with asymmetry is that people think they want asymmetrical games, when what they really want is identity. People don't want a large variety of options for balance reasons or because "more is better". They want the ability to say "This is my choice". "This is how I play", "I am a Menoth player", "I main Dr. Mario", "I usually roll up a wizard", "I like to play as the hot chick", "I'm a blue player"--these are all the kinds of statements people will make about a game because the game provides those options a player can align themselves with to establish their identity within the context of the game. I'll disagree with this slightly only to say that I do think there's a "more is better" mindset at work a lot of the time. I see this a lot in stuff like RPGs where people get salty over a game not having intricately detailed rules for X or Y or not having a million lovely options that nobody takes even if they never ever use them. There's maybe a dozen guns people ever want to take in Shadowrun but if you were to actually narrow it down to a dozen guns then Shadowrun fans would revolt. Some of it that might still come down to identity, but I think some of it comes down to some gamers equating volume of apparent decisions (what you're calling breadth) with quality on a 1-1 scale. More things equals more better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
In most games (including CE), asymmetry is code for 'there's no way in hell we adequately playtested this enough to balance the factions, so good thing it's 3+ players, so they can balance each other with diplomacy lol!'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Chaos in the Old World is what an asymmetric game should look like IMO. It's not packed full of factions to keep the game from feeling shallow, and it's not slight changes for the sake of themselves. Every player has meaningfully different goals and tools that create interesting dynamics which wouldn't exist in a symmetric game.Kai Tave posted:I'll disagree with this slightly only to say that I do think there's a "more is better" mindset at work a lot of the time. I see this a lot in stuff like RPGs where people get salty over a game not having intricately detailed rules for X or Y or not having a million lovely options that nobody takes even if they never ever use them. There's maybe a dozen guns people ever want to take in Shadowrun but if you were to actually narrow it down to a dozen guns then Shadowrun fans would revolt. Some of it that might still come down to identity, but I think some of it comes down to some gamers equating volume of apparent decisions (what you're calling breadth) with quality on a 1-1 scale. More things equals more better. "More is better" is absolutely endemic in video game design and I think the roots of it might actually be in the trad RPG influences to a great extent. It's at the point where if I'm reading about a game and the designers/advertisers make any mention of how much stuff is in it or how customisable it is etc. I will immediately assume it's barely designed garbage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Oooo this ties into Choices vs Decisions. Decisions are logic things with a 'correct' answer. Choices are more like apples vs oranges. Most choices in games are really just decisions masquerading as choices. On the surface you have the choice of which gun to use, but the correct one is whatever one does the most damage the fastest. It's not really a Choice. I remember a fellow pointing out in a presentation that Fallout's Perks were excellent examples of actual Choice. Do you want knives to do more damage, or do you want to carry more stuff? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:Oooo this ties into Choices vs Decisions. This is a good way to break things down, and it's something that infuriates the hell out of me in things like RPGs which seem to be stuck in a mindset of "give people a million lovely options, ten of which are good" for any sort of halfway crunchy game. Give me all the Choices you want as long as they're actually interesting and not an exercise in "spot the trap."
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Trasson posted:
See, the thing about CE is that these objections are completely wrong, but it's a failure of the game itself that it's not obvious to a new or casual player WHY they're wrong. For instance, regarding cards: You're not going to play all the cards in your hand, when you know what you're doing. A large part of skilled play is learning how to ditch the cards that don't help you so that you can get a new draw, or to pad out a hand with cards you need to protect so you're not forced to discard them. Managing your hand is an actual skill, but the game does gently caress-all to present this as something you need to pay any attention to. Or planets: You can't choose which player to attack, but you do choose which planet, and except for the first few encounters of the game not every planet is going to be the same. Some will have more defenders than others. Maybe you attack a lightly defended planet to improve your odds, or maybe you attack a more defended planet to do more damage because you have a kill card. The other players' presence on the planet will affect who will accept an ally offer, so you have to take that into account. But all of this gets drowned out with THE ALIEN POWERS and THE FLARES which, while they're important parts of the game, aren't THAT important, but it's what all your attention gets drawn to, and it's where all the design work gets done, and most of the powers are just bad for the game. Like, there are powers that are literally supersets of other powers and this is regarded as a good thing by the designers. I think the worst thing is that the current edition is Fantasy Flight being peak Fantasy Flight, dumping on as much COOL THEMATIC RANDOMNESS as they can, instead of working on ways to improve player agency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
OmegaGoo posted:Sheriff of Nottingham is about as good as Splendor. Having seen Sheriff of Nottingham, I'd rather play Splendor. This is not an endorsement of Splendor, my opinion of which has altered from "the player who goes last can never win" to "the player who goes last can win, maybe, if it's a three-player game and the other two players make an early split on a colour that then never comes out again".
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Tendales posted:See, the thing about CE is that these objections are completely wrong, but it's a failure of the game itself that it's not obvious to a new or casual player WHY they're wrong. I'll stand by and double down on my assertion of how this means that Cosmic Encounter's way too many alien factions do not equate to or create great strategic depth. It's a shame because when you put it that way, CE actually sounds like a decent game at the core but it's just covered up by the rotten frosting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Asymmetry done right is COIN.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:All bluffing games reward luck over lying, particularly short ones, and not everyone is against an hour-long heavy filler game on principle. And it has nothing to do with Games Workshop. Bullshit! Coup and Resistance, which are good, modern bluffing games, reward lying over luck more often than not. Additionally, yes, GW published Cosmic, UK 2nd edition. That enough is alone to get an entire generation of 80's GW kool-aid drinkers to completely ignore all its flaws. Kai Tave posted:I'll disagree with this slightly only to say that I do think there's a "more is better" mindset at work a lot of the time. I see this a lot in stuff like RPGs where people get salty over a game not having intricately detailed rules for X or Y or not having a million lovely options that nobody takes even if they never ever use them. There's maybe a dozen guns people ever want to take in Shadowrun but if you were to actually narrow it down to a dozen guns then Shadowrun fans would revolt. Some of it that might still come down to identity, but I think some of it comes down to some gamers equating volume of apparent decisions (what you're calling breadth) with quality on a 1-1 scale. More things equals more better. I've seen this firsthand. A game came out with more playable characters than Marvel vs. Capcom 2 that otherwise plays nearly identically to MvC2, but people still praise MvC2 because 56 > 16 even though Servbot, Roll, Dan, Bone Wolverine, and so on shouldn't count. People are idiots. Trasson posted:I'll stand by and double down on my assertion of how this means that Cosmic Encounter's way too many alien factions do not equate to or create great strategic depth. This + what Tendales said, almost exactly. Cosmic is still receiving content today, so I'm allowed to call it poo poo based off modern standards. Additionally, the stuff being added is wildly variant in terms of usability, with the designers assuming player politics to fill in the gap, which is an objectively wrong way to make a game. Cosmic is about hand management and then not making trap choices, which is the same stupid poo poo that Sentinels revolves around. I did a big numbers post a while back, but can't be damned to pull it up right now. The important bit from it was that the deck is too big and full of too much poo poo to the point where luck was the largest defining thing in the game. >Hour-long "filler" where it's just about who draws the best power and Attack/Negotiate/Flare cards? Just loving play Candy Land.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Not formally, no. But breaking down the math to any RNG should reveal reasonable patterns, players should be given choices within the confines of their game, rules should be clearly enforceable given the information available to all players, optimal actions ingame should be identical to in-character actions, all starting positions should have an equal chance to win, and acceptable length is arguable but ultimately clear when extremely unacceptable. I find it paradoxical that you would put up Splendor as the ideal "modern game" when it's so boring. Does modern game design need to be fun at all, or are we talking about just some platonic ideal of a game? People can't just be loving Cosmic Encounter due to nostalgia, lots of people pick it up brand new to them, and there are lots of games from the 70's that no one gives a poo poo about any more. I don't think you can boil a game down to a set of objectively "good" or "bad" elements, and then measure the quality of a game by tallying up the total positive an negative elements. The total is greater than the sum of its parts or whatever, at least in classic games like Cosmic that are beloved for decades.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
I wanted to really like Cosmic when I got it but there's wasn't enough of a game there to justify the (always longer than it should be) play time. Kemet filled the gap left by Cosmic in my collection, my friends and I prefer Kemet so, so much more. It must be doing something right though because it's always in demand. I got my copy from a goon in the previous iteration of this thread, when I tired of it I listed it on a board game selling & trading page on Facebook and it was sold within 5 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:Guys, get your pre-order for Loopin Chewie in early while you still can Loopin' Chewie can only do 3 players instead of 4. This saddens me. Though it should be relatively easy to mod it to 6, compared to making an 8 player Loopin' Louie
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Asymmetry done right is COIN. or Yomi
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Trasson posted:Breadth is not depth, and strategic depth in a game of asymmetrical factions only counts if those factions actually employ different strategies. Tendales posted:But all of this gets drowned out with THE ALIEN POWERS and THE FLARES which, while they're important parts of the game, aren't THAT important, but it's what all your attention gets drawn to, and it's where all the design work gets done, and most of the powers are just bad for the game. Like, there are powers that are literally supersets of other powers and this is regarded as a good thing by the designers. Broken Loose posted:Bullshit! Coup and Resistance, which are good, modern bluffing games, reward lying over luck more often than not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Going on a 16 day trip to Italy with no checked luggage and am bringing: Battleline Tides of Time Haggis Tessen Standard deck of cards (mainly for casino) Jaipur All tucked in the Battleline box. Now if only I could win a single game of Haggis against my wife.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Asymmetry done right is COIN. Correct. It aint REAL Asymmetry unless you all have unique win conditions too.  Also, Sherriff of Nottingham is a Bad Game
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Asymmetry done right is COIN. Also, Netrunner. It's not just "variable player powers" as BGG would classify a lot of games with different starting rules, but it actually has asymmetric game mechanics for the two different sides, Corp and Runner. They have different win conditions and different actions available to them on a turn. But more importantly, they fundamentally play differently: the corporation builds a tableau of hidden information in an attempt to set up obstacles and traps to prevent the runner from determining how the corp intends to score, while the runner has no hidden information other than their hand and constantly attacks the corporation's (concealed) tableau looking to steal their scoring opportunities. It's brilliant. It's so weird to me that Richard Garfield came up with this 20 years ago and no other lcg has really attempted something similar. fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
COIN and netrunner are definitely awesome asymmetrical games. I play a ton of netrunner but would like to play more COIN; however, games with themes of 20th-21st century history aren't in demand with my group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Believing that hype after finally tabling Argent. For those of you have played a bunch, how early do you go for marks? I had a nasty engine/arsenal going but I lost by one vote mainly because I didn't see enough objectives. The balance is real.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I find it paradoxical that you would put up Splendor as the ideal "modern game" when it's so boring. Does modern game design need to be fun at all, or are we talking about just some platonic ideal of a game? He only brought up Splendor because I brought it up. I don't think Splendor is even close to an ideal "modern game". I think of it as a baseline; it does everything it needs to do to be considered a playable game by modern design standards. I agree that it's quite boring. As for Sheriff of Nottingham vs. Splendor... the only reason I consider Sheriff close to Splendor is because I actively enjoyed the nonsense that occurred during the one game of it I played. I agree there isn't actually much of a "game" in Sheriff. There aren't any compelling choices to be made; it's a decent vehicle for humorous banter. Unlike some of the social lubricants we talk about here, Sheriff works well enough to be an actual game. I still can't recommend it in good conscience. T-Bone posted:Believing that hype after finally tabling Argent. Depends on your strategy. Early, late, or NOT AT ALL can all pay off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Bluffing games are always a coin flip, where you're trying to identify the odds of the flip. Some longer games give you more opportunity for skill to identify the odds (like poker), but it's always a coin flip. Ah yes, Resistance, the game that always comes down to coin flip and has nothing at all to do with lying and deduction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Bluffing games are always a coin flip, where you're trying to identify the odds of the flip. Some longer games give you more opportunity for skill to identify the odds (like poker), but it's always a coin flip. I think Cosmic has broken your idea of what bluffing entails, because it actually has very little despite everyone calling it a bluffing game. Bluffing matters in poker because you can get your opponent to fold if you have bet high with a worthless hand and still win, or give you more money if you have a great hand that you can win with anyway. The bluffing is everything: if you win, how much money you gain/lose each hand, when you're eliminated; reducing it to a coin flip is laughable. Perhaps if the person you are trying to bluff is literally using a coin flip to decide whether to call your bluff, then bluffing doesn't matter. Otherwise every bluffing game is built around the risks and rewards of bluffing and having your opponent either call your bluff or back down. In Cosmic your attack cards are randomly drawn and vary wildly, and only the attacker wagers 1 to 4 ships (which is effectively negligible); the "bluffing" is basically non-existent or highly circumstantial.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
 UK Goons: Codenames now available from Board Game Guru. Should be shipping out on 8 September (next Tuesday)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 16:17
|
|