|
xopods posted:The most important thing in prototyping is to forget about making it pretty. I'm a professional graphic designer, and my prototypes are ugly as gently caress. One thing I'll say is that it's a good idea to label all the components either on the component itself or have a components overview in the game manual. For all FFG does wrong with their manuals, they always list what each component is. As someone who plays a lot of games with people who don't speak English very well, or German for that matter, deciphering what each piece is can be tricky for them if it's not clearly labeled. There's been a few instances where we had the quantity of each piece in the manual and had to figure it out that way. jmzero posted:For cards, my strategy for a while has been to put Magic cards (junk cards are essentially free) in Magic sleeves (cheap, available everywhere) and then slide in regular paper printed inserts in front of the Magic card. I've yet to find cardboard that both "feels" right for shuffling and also goes through the cheap color printers I have access to. Magic cards in sleeves shuffle very well, and being sleeved means you don't have to be overly careful cutting/etc.. If you print your cards a little small, sleeving them and unsleeving them (with the Magic card already in there) is very fast. This is what I do as well, I usually use L5R cards though as they come in two different color card backs so if I need to separate two decks I don't have to print and cut backs as well, not a recommendation though as L5R cards are not nearly as easy to get in bulk as M:tg cards. You can also buy one of those 'Costco' packs of Hoyle cards and sleeve those, again: good if you need two different color backs. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Nov 22, 2012 |
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Ebethron posted:Mark Rosewater argues that the process of discovery, renewed with the release of each set, is one of the reasons why MtG is so popular (the endless Dominion expansions support this sort of argument too). MtG is also a game with a lot of space if we consider the whole constructed metagame, as match-ups between different decks are effectively different games. Players get bored and frustrated when the space narrows because the format has been 'solved' and a single best deck has been discovered(i.e. a shallow metagame results in reduced space across a sequence of games in a given tournament). Almost every magic player i know loves draft a lot more than any other format for this reason. It's funny too because you'd think limiting your overall cardpool would limit choices but really it allows a lot more cards into the realm of playability.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Voting! I find the area of decision-making in democracies fascinating, and it's one that board games could explore very well on a small scale. Take a basic multiplayer game of, say, economics, add an element of rules changes by vote, and you have a whole open-ended dynamic of decisions and interactions for the players. And there are plenty of parameters the designer can screw around with, such as secret vs non-secret ballots or veto power, that can massively change the way players make their choices. Sadly, I can't think of any current games that really use voting. The problem with voting in games is that the guy winning, or in the position of the most power is the one who gets screwed. Because the game lasts a finite number of turns there is rarely a good amount of incentive to work with the winner. Thus most times voting, or diplomacy occurs it's to unkingmake someone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
There's really no sense trying to change what you call things at this point. If you say your game is Ameritrash or it's a Euro people will have a good idea of what to expect. I think we're past the point where it really matters towards the feeling of how the games are respected. There's tons of good Ameritrash games just like there's tons of bad Euros. Neither is inherently better in this day and age. Just adding in more terms isn't going to serve a big enough purpose to help us discuss a game. If you tell me game X is a 'Blockbuster' or an 'Arthouse' that could mean a lot of different things because those aren't clear terms, while Euro and Ameritrash are clearly established terms. I'm not saying you shouldn't add in more terms, but I don't see any reason why you should throw out the terms that are already established.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
xopods posted:(a) They're not descriptive terms at all, even if they're accurate in terms of where the design philosophies originated. To a non-gamer, they say nothing about what a game is like, whereas Arthouse and Blockbuster refer to something most people know more about, i.e. movies. a) They are not inherently descriptive but they are descriptive to people who understand them. While you're right that Arthouse and Blockbuster refer to something more people know about, they aren't helpful in describing the mechanics or gameplay of the game itself which is more important. Someone who has never played a board game will have no idea how a Blockbuster plays as opposed to an Arthouse game. People who've played board games already have a definition of a Euro and an Ameritrash, and adding in more terms isn't helpful to actually discussing the game itself none of those terms you created describe stuff relevant to how the game plays which is the most important part the game. Even a core level just knowing a Euro game is themeless but mechanically solid, while an Ameritrash is highly random with a ton of theme is a decent enough starting point to put most games between the two. b) There's a community of people that love their "-trash" and wear it like a badge of honor, recognizing the negative connotation and turning it into a positive one. 5 years ago, I'd probably agree with you that the term was pretty bad but now there's plenty of games that fall under the banner and are proud to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:Bolding the problem here. If a term is only descriptive in any sense to people who already know what the term means, then by definition it isn't descriptive. People, including board gamers, understand what a blockbuster/Arthouse is and its an easy image to convey over to board games when we're talking about them like that. If the terms 'Aren't important' then what's wrong with wanting ones that are a bit less geographically-centred and a bit less derogatory? There's just as many negative connotations to your terms Blockbuster and Arthouse already and they aren't established within the community already. You could just as easily tell someone it's a worker placement game, but that wouldn't mean anything to them unless they'd place a game with that mechanic before. Similarly you could tell someone this movie is an Arthouse film but they probably wouldn't really know what that means until they played one. Again if you want to make more terms to talk about games, fine. Blockbuster/Arthouse are not good examples because they don't describe the important part of the game which is how it plays. And we do other things that way, Westerns for example. Pretty much any movie made involving cowboys, gunplay in a desert, will be called a Western, but that means nothing to someone who hasn't seen a Western before. Why is JRPG not a good example? I think it helps when you think of them as abstracted from what they actually mean. JRPG has little to do with games from Japan these days, instead it refers to a sub-genre of RPGs that are in the style of games produced in Japan during the popularity of RPGs. I don't think of that as having a negative connotation in that genre at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:I disagree, I dont think 'Blockbuster' or 'Arthouse' have any negative connotations, certainly not on the level of literally having the word 'Trash' after them. Ameri-trash and Eurogame don't describe the games at all to anyone other than people who already know what those terms mean, and even then its incredibly loose. Frankly I don't think any term like that would be useful, a more 'design' term, like Top Down/Down Up and a more 'Gamer' term, like Blockbuster/Arthouse would work best, I think. The majority of people who are in the hobby have disassociated the locations with the terms, just like jRPG. If you say jRPG I don't think the game is from Japan, I assume it's made in a style that was made popular by Japan years ago. If you say the game is a Japanese RPG I just assume the game is an RPG made in Japan which could mean anything. Similarly Euro Games are different than European Designed Board Games, and people understand this. Yes, it's confusing to new people but it's not too hard to figure out and I've explained it to many people using bullet points not unlike the ones Xopods did. You're right that having a word with -trash added on the end does have an obviously bad connotation. However if you say to me "Would you like to watch a blockbuster?" I think: big budget movie with lots of nice special effects with a big name actors with an outrageous story and probably lovely writing and characterization. and if you say to me "Would you like to watch an Arthouse movie?" I think: low budget movie with no actors I've ever heard of, probably pretentious as gently caress, but might have good writing and characterization. Neither one of those is something I want to watch based on giving me a one word description. I'd say those are pretty common conceptions of those two terms. If you asked me to play a board game using either one I wouldn't want to play either. We have plenty more terms to talk about games, and they involve the mechanics at work in those games. Saying this is a role selection Euro game is different than saying this is a worker placement Euro game. The terms didn't stick because they were useless, they've been around a long time, just like jRPG. Just like jRPG, they aren't going to be replaced anytime soon. If you want to create new words to help people who aren't into board games get into them, GREAT! None of the terms suggested would help people understand what the games are about unless they already had a concept of board games. Edit: To clarify a bit more. Describing a game in a term someone knows is pointless because the term isn't analogous between genres. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
silvergoose posted:That was kind of my thought process, yeah. Maybe have a Phoenix Wright themed game with that sort of gameplay. Reskin the simple card game "BS", or whatever the PG version is called. Add in some extra cards, change "BS" to "Objection!" and *boom* instant Phoenix Wright. "1 Clue..." "2 Pieces of Evidence..." "3 Eye Witnesses..." "OBJECTION!...gently caress!(takes the player's 3 eye witnesses)" PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 17:01
|
|