|
Johnny Truant posted:I think Monopoly is pretty fun U motherfukr I'll show you fun
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Johnny Truant posted:I think Monopoly is pretty fun Then I guess Monopoly is a good game.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
It's almost like every special snowflake has their own version of "good" or "fun".
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:It's almost like every special snowflake has their own version of "good" or "fun". Good is objective fun is purely subjective
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Anyone going to the U.K. Game Expo? I'm seriously considering going.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Anyone going to the U.K. Game Expo? I'm seriously considering going.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Rumda posted:Good is objective fun is purely subjective Good is objective within a relative frame. A mechanic that's really good in one game might be a goddamn disaster in another. And "fun" is only one subjective measure. I love 1846 and Terra Mystica, but I wouldn't describe the enjoyment I get from games like those as fun. Fun is  and  and  . Many good games are  and  Many popular games are  and 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Johnny Truant posted:I think Monopoly is pretty fun I'm sure you can make it a fun experience with friends and copious amounts of liquor.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Semantic arguments about fun are super boring and unfun
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Rumda posted:Good is objective fun is purely subjective Good isn't objective. If it were, we wouldn't be discussing it here. Rutibex posted:The other factors (like balance, replayability, depth of strategy, randomness) These things are subjective too and really depend on your group. The value of balance is largely dependent on whether players prefer asymmetry over symmetry and/or are very proficient/willing to break games open. Replayability is dependent on the group's need for variety. Depth of strategy doesn't have to mean more fun either (consider time spent waiting on other players), and randomness is such a general term it's pretty useless as well. You can go all the way from liar's dice to chess, random to predetermined. Is chess a 'better' game because it's less random?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Asymmetry doesn't mean that something is unbalanced. Also, things like randomness/depth of strategy/etc are objective criteria hat can be used to analyse games and see how well a game works as a whole. Of course it's possible to say that you like, subjectively, more/less randomness but that doesn't change the fact that something can be objectively more random than something else. The thing about those objective criterias is that they aren't black and white "random bad/non-random good" like the straw man that you are constructing. Randomness is an important criteria to analyse because randomness badly applied can make a game bad just like no- randomness badly applied can make a game bad. Saying everything is subjective is reductionary as gently caress. Tekopo fucked around with this message at 14:42 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:Just skipped around in the Man vs. Meeple video. I have to admit nothing really caught my attention, but that could just be that the video itself was fairly boring. The game seemed like an amalgamation of a few Euro ideas from different popular games. What makes it appealing and a "hot game"? I like the games that it's appropriating (TM and Navegador, primarily) but it does seem a hella staid design in a genre that can be iterative to begin with. It does less new things than Scythe.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Was thinking of going for a day excursion (just take the train there and back without staying). Hotels too expensive now. I found a hotel in Solehil for $227 for three nights but I'm driving.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
On the topic of fun / well designed games. What is the consensus on one deck dungeon? I am pretty sure I will back it, despite the random dice chucking, for a light small footprint travel game. I can't decide if the two versions of brass are different enough to back at the $100 level, thoughts?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:The thing about those objective criterias is that they aren't black and white "random bad/non-random good" like the straw man that you are constructing. Randomness is an important criteria to analyse because randomness badly applied can make a game bad just like no- randomness badly applied can make a game bad. For instance, I generally dislike auction mechanics in games, so whenever I listen to reviews of games from people who list auctions as their favorite mechanic in gaming, I temper my expectations of any game they mention that has auctions in it. I also tend to not mind input randomness, but I absolutely despise output randomness where an action can randomly fail for no reason other than "lol get hosed." Output randomness that can be mitigated is more acceptable, but I'd rather just have the costs stated up front. And that's fine! Some people I game with are the exact opposite! To them, output randomness is amazing and exactly what they look for in a game. They like not knowing if an action will succeed or fail based on the dice, and they like playing by the seat of their pants and adjusting on the fly to what the dice give them at any moment. But, if all someone does is describe a game as "fun" without mentioning things like how much randomness it has or if there are auctions, or worker placement, or card drafting, or deckbuilding, etc. etc., then calling the game "fun" is pretty useless. Calling a game fun is like calling a burger food. It tells me that it's not utter garbage, but I need a lot more information before I decide whether or not it's worth picking up or seeking out.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Actually no games are fun
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:Actually no games are fun
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Good is objective within a relative frame. A mechanic that's really good in one game might be a goddamn disaster in another.  There's an 18xx group that meets twice a month at an LGS. The guy who runs the shop says that whenever he sees them together, they don't look like they're having fun. Obviously they enjoy it since they wouldn't get together twice a month to spend all saturday playing that game. But they look like they're in agony and frustration, like the famous CampaignForNorthAfrica.jpg:
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
They are still having fun. Just a different kind of fun. Edit: this is from someone that plays both 18XX and heavy wargames. Semantic arguments about what the definition of fun are really stupid IMO. Tekopo fucked around with this message at 15:36 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
A more interesting question -- and one that critics and designers rarely bother to ask -- is what a game is trying to accomplish. Games have varying levels of competition, interaction, strategy, puzzle solving, and roleplaying and I feel like the worst games I've played have an identity crisis. They don't know what they want to be or feel derivative without a point. I finish them and regardless of their strategic depth or design I'm left with an empty feeling. I didn't learn anything, there's nothing to reflect on, I don't feel like playing again: it's just a waste of time and space. I haven't played Cosmic Encounter, but whenever people describe it to me I can't say I've heard of a game that tries to emulate the experience. If there was people wouldn't be discussing it 40 years later. I can't say the same about Talisman, also a game some weirdos speak about in reverence but I can name a sizable list of fantasy adventure games with random events and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
quote:I didn't learn anything, there's nothing to reflect on, I don't feel like playing again: it's just a waste of time and space. For me, this is a super important property for a game. Like, for example, Trajan works as a game pretty well, but I never felt a reason to go back to it. There was nothing memorable about what happened, nothing to chew on between games. al-azad posted:I haven't played Cosmic Encounter, but whenever people describe it to me I can't say I've heard of a game that tries to emulate the experience. If there was people wouldn't be discussing it 40 years later. I can't say the same about Talisman, also a game some weirdos speak about in reverence but I can name a sizable list of fantasy adventure games with random events and poo poo. When Garfield made MtG, he said he was trying to make a mix of Cosmic Encounter and Poker - "Cosmic Poker". CE has too much luck (through randomness, simultaneous action selection, and politics) for me to be a big fan - but there's no denying it has been a super influential game. It has a lot of ideas that have become widespread only relatively recently (like how it uses the Destiny deck - well, and wads of hidden information - to clamp politics). There may not be games that try to recreate all of the CE experience, but there are games with effectively very similar properties, just in a different package - Kemet plays like a lower-luck CE (though without the radical starting asymmetry).
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
jmzero posted:
What's the source for this? I've always heard that it was when he was designing Android Netrunner that he used poker ideas, blending Magic and Poker into a bluffing/dueling hybrid, which makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Who doesn't love when the board games thread descends into confident assertions about the indeterminacy of language and the validity of reader-response criticism?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
This thread is neither good nor fun right now.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
The Gloomhaven Kickstarter is in its last 11 hours: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1350948450/gloomhaven-second-printing
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Rumda posted:Good is objective fun is purely subjective At the risk of dragging the boring discussion further (but hopefully getting some actual responses and some perspective), I'm curious if anyone who actually believes this cares to offer up what objective measurements they use when they apply the term "Good Game".
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Theme/rules connectivity, accessibility, graphic design, UI design, potential downtime during turns, how open ended the game is, playtime (although this relates to other elements, use of randomness etc It's like film criticism: they have acting, cinematography, use of sounds, how well the film was edited, and it's generally accepted that analysis of those criteria can be used to make an assessment of how good/bad the film is. This isn't mean that there is universal consensus and that's why stuff is discussed on the internet. Except board gaming criticism is like 3-year-olds learning to speak. When people say that good is objective they don't mean that there is an absolute truth about a particular game being good or not. They mean that it is possible to discuss if a board game is good or not based on objective criteria.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:What's the source for this? I've always heard that it was when he was designing Android Netrunner that he used poker ideas, blending Magic and Poker into a bluffing/dueling hybrid, which makes a lot more sense. I can't find the specific source for this wording in this context (I think perhaps one of his cruise talks... the only Google result I get for "Cosmic Poker" is from later and not in the context of Magic). But I also don't think it's a terribly interesting/extraordinary claim. Clearly Poker is one of his favorite games (since at least college, where he says he played a lot), and Poker being an influence on Netrunner does not preclude it from being an influence on Magic.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
please knock Mom! posted:I actually own their Frag game. It's awful. Frag is fast-paced, good, and fun in comparison to Strange Synergy. Never play Strange Synergy.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:
The first time I saw Napoleon's Triumph it was two dudes agonizing turn after turn, and both of them telling me "I'm so screwed...I'm so dead...everything I'm about to do is going to fail horribly" but they both love the game and now I do so.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:What's the source for this? I've always heard that it was when he was designing Android Netrunner that he used poker ideas, blending Magic and Poker into a bluffing/dueling hybrid, which makes a lot more sense. Garfield's own essay in the Pocket Players Guide.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
I'd add rules clarity and tightness to Tekopo's list. FFG is a great example of lacking those.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Are there any general recommendations for organizing tokens/cards/etc or things like that? I'm getting a little worried what with looking to pick up the MK expansion, about having two boxes of stuff to deal with. Plus I backed Gloomhaven sooo anything that might help to organize or make setup/cleanup easier would be awfully nice. On the same note: how about mats for tiles? I'm basically always playing on surfaces that are quite slippery for them, so I'm always a little nervous I might bonk one and send it spinning off 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:Are there any general recommendations for organizing tokens/cards/etc or things like that? I'm getting a little worried what with looking to pick up the MK expansion, about having two boxes of stuff to deal with. Plus I backed Gloomhaven sooo anything that might help to organize or make setup/cleanup easier would be awfully nice. Depends on the game but I find the plastic hardware components box to be pretty useful. Not sure how useful it will be for MK. As for a mat I would get a piece of vinyl fabric from a fabric/craft store and use that.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:Are there any general recommendations for organizing tokens/cards/etc or things like that? I'm getting a little worried what with looking to pick up the MK expansion, about having two boxes of stuff to deal with. Plus I backed Gloomhaven sooo anything that might help to organize or make setup/cleanup easier would be awfully nice. It's not the cheapest solution, but this fits Mage Knight + Lost Legion and will save you about a half hour of set up time. http://www.thebrokentoken.com/magic-night-organizer/
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:Are there any general recommendations for organizing tokens/cards/etc or things like that?  
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
 quote:
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
$2 dollar plastic trays near the beads in a walmart work great for tokens, If you splurge and get the $6 ones you can change the sizes of the slots.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Petrichor looks cool. It's a light-medium area control game with an attractive theme/board (you're a cloud!). It seems like it has the potential to have some of the neat (but cutthroat) interaction of classic AC games like El Grande in a tidy package and I'm always on the lookout for weekday games like that. That being said the shipping sucks to the US (I know boohoo) but I'm intrigued.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Anyone interested in an in depth review of the dark souls board game? Can't imagine it'll even get close to MK or gloomhaven but maybe there's something specific people wanna know about
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:35
|
|