|
Any recommendations for video play-throughs of games? Could be a particular channel or just a series, but I was primarily looking for something to throw in the background and to get me excited for a game, or to see higher level play of something more complex so I can learn rules/strategies I may have not noticed before. I'm not looking for one game or genre in particular.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
Rahdo is annoying and loves every game he reviews and gets more rules wrong than basically everyone, BUT I have found his playthrough videos to be a good way to get the feeling and mindspace of a game in a way that rules/teach vids don’t.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:Any recommendations for video play-throughs of games? Could be a particular channel or just a series, but I was primarily looking for something to throw in the background and to get me excited for a game, or to see higher level play of something more complex so I can learn rules/strategies I may have not noticed before. I'm not looking for one game or genre in particular. Johngetsgames, Slickerdrips and GamingRules! are playthrough channels I enjoy. Rickyroyal for solo games. Soloplaythroughs has some good ones as well. I also really like Michael Wißners videos, but he does like one video a year. But he has sold me on so many games so there is that
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
I personally enjoy BGG's Game Night series, mainly because the crew genuinely seem to have a good time with almost all of the games they play. Monique and Naveen of Before You Play are also excellent at showing 2-player gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
ReadySteadyPlay isn't bad but their production is hampered by space restrictions, they also break it up into smaller segments. Dale the casual gamer is pretty good for solo stuff but he doesn't have a super deep library from what I remember.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Bodanarko posted:Rahdo is annoying and loves every game he reviews and gets more rules wrong than basically everyone, BUT I have found his playthrough videos to be a good way to get the feeling and mindspace of a game in a way that rules/teach vids don’t. He loves every game he reviews because he only reviews games he thinks he'll like. As a reviewer myself, reviewing bad games is hard. Unlike bad movies, to have a credible bad game review you have to play it more than once. And if the game is really for 3+, you have to find 2+ to play a bad game. No one is going to do that, so bad games don't get reviewed much and when they do it's usually after a single play and people criticize the review for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
The few times I watched a Rahdo video, I saw video overlays and callouts for any corrections or notes related to what just happened in the video. That seemed like a really good way to address anything found to be missing or wrong after the fact, and I appreciated that the guy took the time to annotate his content like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:As a reviewer myself, reviewing bad games is hard. This is 100% true. I just started making board game videos and my most recent one was a game I didn't like. I don't think I'll make any more videos about games I'm not a fan of because I not only have to play a game I don't like X times, but then I have to talk about how I don't like it then edit me talking about how I don't like it etc. Not as fun as rambling about games I have fun playing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Hah, reminds me of doing QA in the game industry. What people think you do  You like games? Cool OK play this new game we're working on, and then tell us if you had fun. Got any ideas to make it better? We're all ears!What you actually do  Click each button a thousand times then resize the window and see if it breaks. Document your findings to the dev team according to this form exactly, but remember Sandra hates bullet points and Jim doesn't read anything over 1 paragraph so keep that in mind if your report is going to either of them & you don't want it ignored/kicked back to you instantly. e: Also BTW you aren't invited to staff events because you're not considered "staff".
The Eyes Have It fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Oct 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
It's exactly the same for testing board games. You are basically playing broken versions of games over and over and over again until you find something that doesn't fall apart. You need to find people that are willing to do some crazy strategies where they do only one thing the entire game and see if it is balanced. By the end of the process you won't want to play that game ever again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Selecta84 posted:Johngetsgames, Slickerdrips and GamingRules! are playthrough channels I enjoy. Phelddagrif posted:I personally enjoy BGG's Game Night series, mainly because the crew genuinely seem to have a good time with almost all of the games they play. Monique and Naveen of Before You Play are also excellent at showing 2-player gameplay. Secondling these all (though I have only watched a few Slickerdrips vids), and adding that Monique and Naveen do vids on Watch It Played now too, as actual play hasn't been on that channel for a while. Among them, JGG does take a nice time to explain the rules and some internal logic while simultaneously stacking decks to create an interesting gameplay and learning experience. Even after knowing that, watching his vids, I'm like... I still want to win! His FOCOG vid helped me finally grok that game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38g_HnUrpYU&t=1443s
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:It's exactly the same for testing board games. You are basically playing broken versions of games over and over and over again until you find something that doesn't fall apart. You need to find people that are willing to do some crazy strategies where they do only one thing the entire game and see if it is balanced. By the end of the process you won't want to play that game ever again. I'm pretty lucky then; I've playtested a lot of games I never want to play again, but there's a few that I still love.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 23:28
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:It's exactly the same for testing board games. You are basically playing broken versions of games over and over and over again until you find something that doesn't fall apart. You need to find people that are willing to do some crazy strategies where they do only one thing the entire game and see if it is balanced. By the end of the process you won't want to play that game ever again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
The Eyes Have It posted:The few times I watched a Rahdo video, I saw video overlays and callouts for any corrections or notes related to what just happened in the video. Yeah, Rahdo does tell people to turn on the Klingon subtitles on for the rules corrections. He knows he's extremely fallible and is honest enough to admit it - although anyone who worked on Bubsy 3D and didn't admit to fallibility shouldn't show their face in public.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
The only thing I playtested that I still wanna play is the deck I helped make for Tash-Kalar
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Unfathomable and other games my family won't play with me because I'm the only one who can lie convincingly
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:It's exactly the same for testing board games. You are basically playing broken versions of games over and over and over again until you find something that doesn't fall apart. You need to find people that are willing to do some crazy strategies where they do only one thing the entire game and see if it is balanced. By the end of the process you won't want to play that game ever again. So, who does the job of playing a game to determine that the developer isn't living in a bubble and their game is actually fun?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
Buck Wildman posted:Unfathomable and other games my family won't play with me because I'm the only one who can lie convincingly And when you do convince them to play they don't trust you all so at best you spend the whole game in the brig traitor or no. Been there buddy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:So, who does the job of playing a game to determine that the developer isn't living in a bubble and their game is actually fun? Big Board Game
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 00:41
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:So, who does the job of playing a game to determine that the developer isn't living in a bubble and their game is actually fun? From personal experience, your friend dragoons you into playing his prototype over and over. It is kinda fun to play a game explicitly to break it but I wouldn't want it to be my full time job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
Testing TTRPG’s is a lot more fun, because at least there’s a story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
And now with less poo poo posting: I disagree with playtesting being about broken games, or trying to break games. I see designing and playtesting as sculpting a game, as an art form, an act of creation. I may be just one designer, but to me a play test is more about what worked, rather than about what didn't. When it comes to designing a game I find the fun first. If the fun isn't there, it doesn't even get to the table with my closest friends. I rarely convince my friends to playtest for me. I do love their opinions and want to their thoughts, but I'd rather the feedback of people who are actively going to be looking at design from that perspective. Sometimes my friends can be that, and sometimes they can't or don't want to. Nothing wrong with that. More than anything I love playtesting with other designers, who also provide feedback on the act of creation, over the act of breaking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
Can I get recommendation for a game for five, something along the lines of brass for five would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
Hansa teutonica, die macher, idk 1830
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 03:21
|
|
|
Chicago Express
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 03:54
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Hansa teutonica, die macher, idk 1830 Hansa looks like a good fit for the group. I have been interested in learning an 18xx game is this a good start? Thank you Bottom Liner posted:Chicago Express This is an interesting game I haven’t tried and we enjoy train / economic games so. Thank you
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
Chicago Express is a great primer for 18xx, as it teaches you that auctions can be insanely aggressive. For starter 18xx games though, 89 and Chesapeake are shorter and don't have a lot of the extra layers the bigger games have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
Frozen Peach posted:And now with less poo poo posting: With this in mind, where did a change in your game come from (if you do not mind answering)? In the OG Walking Doggos, each player gave hints and in Heckin Hounds, now only the shift leader gives hints. I think it’s a great change and should speed up that round quite a bit, where I found it could drag with 5-6 people. Also you dont have the issue of people giving very bad (good) hints to others. Similarly, I’ve played Dune Imperium twice now and I’ve been wondering how some of the intrigue card design got through as-is. The endgame scoring cards feel underutilized, all the points cards in there should be endgame or require much more difficult circumstances to play and be safe from the Bene card stealing. I wouldnt be surpised to see an alternate intrigue deck in a mini-expansion or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 05:40
|
|
|
Fellis posted:With this in mind, where did a change in your game come from (if you do not mind answering)? In the OG Walking Doggos, each player gave hints and in Heckin Hounds, now only the shift leader gives hints. I think it’s a great change and should speed up that round quite a bit, where I found it could drag with 5-6 people. Also you dont have the issue of people giving very bad (good) hints to others. Basically, the "problem" I spent the most time trying to solve with Walking Doggos was always that it was a one round and done game. I had a hard time coming up with something more interesting for a "full" game than just doing the same thing multiple rounds, which never felt good enough. Even before I got signed I was trying to solve the "one round" problem. A lot of my problem solving comes from a place of feeling out where the fun is, and focusing in on it. The more time players are spending having fun, the more fun the game is overall. Where is the fun in Walking Doggos as a whole? Watching tricks play out and go horribly wrong or horribly right. Clues were necessary, obviously, given the blind hand mechanic, but the process of giving clues wasn't where the fun was. So that lead me to focus on the clue giving aspects of the game for a while. Where's the fun in giving clues out? The actual process of figuring out the best combination of clues was pretty fun. It is far more fun to give out 3 clues to one player and have full control over that players' fate, and do that for each player, than it is 3 individual clues to 5-6 players. From there, I had to figure out the best, most balanced way, to handle giving 3 clues to a player. I thought about each player giving clues to the next player one round, and the previous player the other round. I thought about randomly selecting a player and giving them 3 clues. None of that felt balanced, because one players' idea of a good clue might be another players' idea of a bad clue. Both the perceived and real balance of the game shifted too much that way. That lead me to having one clue giver a round. Having one clue giver fixed several "problems" with the multi-round game. 1) Sped up each round quite a bit, as you mentioned 2) Made each round feel more dynamic 3) Gave me an easy place to put Cerberus into the game 4) Gave me a solid "end game" with each player having that role once (2x each in 2p game) Another way of looking at it, I've discovered very recently (Thanks largely to Stonemaier's Game Design Day a couple weeks ago), is to think about the cognitive load being spent while playing a game. Where are players spending time thinking? What are they thinking about? What choices are they making? If I apply this to Walking Doggos, the cognitive load on your turn during clue taking is asking yourself several questions before doing anything. 1) Who do I give a clue to? 2) What clues do people already have? 3) What one specific thing can I tell someone right now that is least useful to know? The first two questions are incredibly time consuming, if you start thinking about that cognitive load. They're also not particularly interesting. Everyone needs to get 3 clues, so who you give one to doesn't matter as much as giving someone a clue to move the game forward, the clue itself is the fun part, but to get to that you have to spend time thinking about table state. If you can answer the who and what they already have questions for the player, they no longer have to spend their time thinking about those answers. The game speeds up, which means the fun is had sooner and more frequently. The game already needed a dealer to shuffle and deal out cards. It was a natural progression to give them the responsibility of giving out clues. Then, the "who" question is answered as soon as the shift leader reads "give clues to players" on their cheat sheet. Who do I give a clue to? Everyone. What clues do people already have? Nothing. The dealer can now answer the fun question: What can I tell someone about their hand? and the answer is "3 quick things" rather than "1 quick thing, 3 times"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:Can I get recommendation for a game for five, something along the lines of brass for five would be nice. Tinners' Trail plays five, is a Wallace and is even set in the same period. I finally got it to the table last night and someone remarked that it reminded them strongly of Brass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 10:13
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:So, who does the job of playing a game to determine that the developer isn't living in a bubble and their game is actually fun?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 10:37
|
|
|
Played Unfathomable at 5 last night and it's a big improvement over BSG. Now I should say I do not like BSG for various reasons and Unfathomable fixes most of those issues. For starters everything happens on the boat, you're never bumbling about elsewhere by yourself. There's more action, the deep ones are a more constant threat so there are fewer dead turns where there's just not much to do as a Human. Doing 2 actions vs move and act is a good change also. The items mean you get to change your character and what you're doing and you can trade them which is great. There also seemed to be fewer definite "right answers™" to turns , going to get items, or stoke the engine or use the chapel are all pretty valid, not wanting to stand on the deck even if a civilian is out there etc so there's enough ambiguity for a traitor to hide in. It's still a long game but it's a much tighter package than BSG and kept everyone engaged because everyone had things to do all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 11:38
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Chicago Express is a great primer for 18xx, as it teaches you that auctions can be insanely aggressive. Thank you I will run both by the group. Jedit posted:Tinners' Trail plays five, is a Wallace and is even set in the same period. I finally got it to the table last night and someone remarked that it reminded them strongly of Brass. Thank you. I will take a look
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 13:38
|
|
|
Frozen Peach posted:Walking Doggos Thanks for taking the time to write it all out! I completely agree with your points and when I was asking you about adding more cards into the hand, I think what I was feeling was not enough plays for the trick taking phase to go wrong, which is definitely where the fun is. I’m looking forward to the full release! The whole concept of the game really is interesting to me because its like a second-level hobbyist simple game. If people know Hanabi, and any Trick-Taking game, you can explain it in about 3 minutes. If not, then its a bit more to get all those concepts across. But there are a ton of people in hobby circles that ‘knowing two other games’ applies to. The shift leader helps smooth the game too, because you dont have to explain that part of the game, you can just show it and it should click for most people after a round or two. Fellis fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Oct 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
I spent hours over 50 games of Dominion online vs the bot and won maybe four times. Is the bot really this hard? The game and expansion are on Amazon for $40 but this is disheartening
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
It’s using a neural network AI, so yeah, it’s really drat good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It’s using a neural network AI, so yeah, it’s really drat good. LOL really? That explains why it tended to not buy VP until I started, and the only times I've beaten it are when I completely curbstomped it
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/colewehrle/status/1445088770886455313Frozen Peach posted:Walking Doggos/Heckin Hounds chat  Looking forward to getting my copyAramoro posted:Unfathomable chat Double Hoping it arrives in the next week or so here in Aus so I can get it to the table for my birthday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Also I know there are some Dice Throne nerds ITT https://twitter.com/DiceThrone/status/1445056141336137737 Dice Throne x Marvel
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
I think you confused us with Reddit
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:25
|
|