Tekopo posted:

Paging Scyther to the thread

Morpheus posted:

Played some Dead of Winter, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I mean, I guess you could call the south the traitors, but I couldn't find out where the zombies were, and instead of hoarding food we just shot cannons at each other? Pretty complex though, I have no idea how it became so popular among a more casual crowd. Anyway, played as the Union, next time I'll be the South see if maybe they get zombies or something.

signalnoise posted:

Everything I ever wanted out of a board game review video has been a 10 minute explanation of how to play a game to teach me and my friends the rules. Unfortunately most of the videos out there are like 20 minutes long which is a bit much, and they include an actual review section. Just tell us how to play the loving game.

Poopy Palpy posted:

I heard you guys like boardgame storage porn:



I was a bit bummed that the delay caused Orleans to get in right before my baby, leaving no time to play it, but it's been nice having something to keep my hands busy while watching her sleep and making sure she doesn't wake her mom up.

Poopy Palpy posted:

I heard you guys like boardgame storage porn:



I was a bit bummed that the delay caused Orleans to get in right before my baby, leaving no time to play it, but it's been nice having something to keep my hands busy while watching her sleep and making sure she doesn't wake her mom up.

burger time posted:

what'd you print the stickers for the gears and citizens on? and are you gonna sticker the goods too?

Tormented posted:

Did you make this or did you get it from someplace?

StashAugustine posted:

Is second edition TTA available online anywhere?

StashAugustine posted:

I meant like on BGA or Vassal.

Poopy Palpy posted:

I heard you guys like boardgame storage porn:



I was a bit bummed that the delay caused Orleans to get in right before my baby, leaving no time to play it, but it's been nice having something to keep my hands busy while watching her sleep and making sure she doesn't wake her mom up.

Gutter Owl posted:

Does anyone have any opinions on the abstract Push Fight? Back in 2012 Ben Kuchera from Penny Arcade Report wrote an article praising this weird little novelty Jerry Holkins got from a jiu jitsu instructor in Missouri. And now Penny Arcade has bought the publishing rights to the game, and they're selling a slick wood edition through their store. And uh, my wallet is trying to crawl out of my purse again. Anyone wanna warn me away?

Big McHuge posted:

Wow, people actually think that politics aren't the central focus of Twilight Imperium or Game of Thrones.

canyoneer posted:

Is Kemet any good with 2 players? That's my most frequent player count and I don't want to buy another expensive, complex game that I rarely have enough players to play

CaptainRightful posted:

If you like Allies and Axis, youll hate this, nothing happens. Its about as exciting as an eye exam. Pass


Edit: I misread your post as Twilight Struggle. Still a great quote.

Big McHuge posted:

Aaaaaaand someone just pulled out a concentration camp reference while discussing the concept of "fun" in games. I'm done.

Big McHuge posted:

http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/susds-top-50-games-ever-2015-30-21/#disqus_thread

Just scroll down to the list entry for user Marx, and then ensues a discussion on Cosmic Encounter, bad games, fun-ness, and Settlers of Catan. For reference, I'm Kevin in that discussion.

quote:

A fascinating perspective! And one that I don't think I can agree with.

Because, here's the thing: people can have fun doing anything. Jewish children played games in concentration camps! They were having fun! They didn't know any better. So the ability to have fun is (I think) an intrinsic aspect of being human.
But good games *enable* you to have fun. They empower and concentrate it. They provide a structure to your event such that fun can occur at higher concentrations than it would normally. And every game I have is constantly tested against the meter-stick of "Would we have more fun just sitting around the table and talking?"

There is still subjectivity in this, of course: I do not enjoy "auction"-style games (Modern Art, For Sale, etc...) and enormously enjoy space operas (Twilight Imperium, Race for the Galaxy, etc...). I find paperwork tedius to the extreme (no "Campaing for North Africa" for me), but others love that sort of stuff (and therefore might enjoy "Space Empires: 4X" more than I usually do). But good game design finds what makes people laugh (or cry, or get angry, or get scared, or whatever) and focuses all your energy on THAT. Bad game design outlines rules and frameworks and concepts that might be neat, but don't actually concentrate on having fun.

Quinns has talked about "good games force you to make meaningful and difficult decisions" (I'm paraphrasing). But that's because what he wants in a game is exactly that, and so games that empower him to that end are fun. Games that rob him of that agency are therefore not fun. They may still be well designed, and fun for other people, but you can't divorce the concept of "fun" from a game.

At least in my opinion.

canyoneer posted:

Big McHuge posted:

http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/susds-top-50-games-ever-2015-30-21/#disqus_thread

Just scroll down to the list entry for user Marx, and then ensues a discussion on Cosmic Encounter, bad games, fun-ness, and Settlers of Catan. For reference, I'm Kevin in that discussion.

quote:

It's a fascinating discussion in a lot of ways. I was also a big fan of Munchkin as I took my first halting steps into the hobby: These days, you couldn't pay me to play it (or... *shudder*... Chez Geek).

But is "unfun for me" necessarily mean "poor game design"? Are all well designed games fun? I mean, Chess (which is as much fun as a root canal) is not at all fun to me any more, but I'd be hard pressed to say it is poorly designed.

The version of Cosmic Encounter that I own (I think it's 1st Edition) is enormously more random than the current version. The combat deck is probably a billion cards, and the odds of you ever (EVER ever) seeing a Flare card, much less YOUR Flare card, must be on the order of a gajillion to 1. Throw in the Moons... does the new version have moons? In the old game, each player had 2 Moons, and if you captured one you got to flip it over and use the rule, and each moon had an icon to show how powerful it was relative to other moons: weak was a crescent moon, moderate was a half-moon, super-powered was a full moon, and "humour" was a wedge of cheese. The cheese moons could be things like "For as long as you own this moon, everyone must refer to you as 'Your Imperial Majesty' when speaking to you or forfeit a ship to the Warp", or "Everyone at the table must immediately give you 1 Lucre, and you must then redistribute it" or whatever. Insane stuff... the new version doesn't have Lucre either, does it... anyway! Gods, tangents.

Back to the point! CE has always thrived in a sense of chaos beyond control. There have always been stupidly powerful races and powerfully stupid races, and in any game you might have absolutely 0% chance to win just based on that (or the order of the Conflict deck, or the cards you draw, or whatever). Does that mean it is a bad design? I dunno! Maybe? But it certainly can be fun... I find it frustrating because I like to control my games (minimize risk, maximize victory vectors, etc...) and in Cosmic, that all goes out the window. But I'm not positive that makes it bad design.

And then there are games with great games buried beneath AWFUL rules (Power Grid isn't a great game, but it's a good one, and man are those rules useless), and then there are truly awful games that are enormously popular (CaH, I do not bite my thumb at thee but I do bite my thumb, sir), and... gods. It's all so jumbled and confusing!

Impermanent posted:

They go on:


I think though that if you have to point out that kids in concentration camps can have just as much fun as you are playing a game then you have lost the argument.

Oldstench posted:

I really (really) loving hate it when people (mostly nerds on the internet it seems) overuse parentheticals in their (usually badly thought out) arguments.

Big McHuge posted:

Is that a Tom Vasel or Rutibex quote regarding Twilight Struggle?

Aghama posted:

Twilight Struggle is in stock on CSI.

Das Doppelganger posted:

If I didn't have an as of yet unplayed copy sitting here I would be very bummed about this. Yes, this is lame project backer* whining, but could you ship to your individual backers first so their neighbor doesn't show up with a copy off the internet before you ever see yours?


*CSI may very well have been a backer for mass quantities and just got it before I did, but golly it's taken a long time to get that shipped out. They should be starting to send this week anyhow. I hope.

Gutter Owl posted:

There are two ways to make a market row more interesting than "who gets the better topdecks."

1) Previewable row, where you know what you're giving your opponent by making a given purchase. Valley of the Kings is an example. But this can easily lead to awful zugzwang situations where no available purchase is worth giving your opponent a shot at a strong upcoming purchase.

2) Dutch auction rows, where a card gets cheaper the longer it stays in the row. Through the Ages and Pax Porfiriana are examples, and are Good Games.