Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Board games] I choose poorly.

15960626465100

Posts

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    The ideal is to trade with the player in last place, sure. But sometimes that isn’t always possible and trading 1:1 with the person in first is often still a very good play because it strengthens your position, increases odds of future resource income, etc. Also because if you don’t trade with the first place player someone else might. And when two other players trade two other players get stronger while you stay the same.

    That said yeah, the first place player is the player who is easiest to lean on and it’s 2:1 trades that favor you and sure take that when you can. 2:1 trades between the first and last place player are like this games catchup mechanic.

    Inquisitor on
  • CaptainPeacockCaptainPeacock Board Game Hoarder Top o' the LakeRegistered User regular
    In Catan I used to love being a hardass on trade proposals. Someone came to me with a trade, I'd only agree if they threw in another card.

    Cluck cluck, gibber gibber, my old man's a mushroom, etc.
    Gvzbgul
  • MNC DoverMNC Dover Game Designer/Stay-at-home Dad Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    In Catan I used to love being a hardass on trade proposals. Someone came to me with a trade, I'd only agree if they threw in another card.

    And this is typically why trading fails, and people ultimately end up not liking the game. Don't get me wrong, it's a legit tactic but I'd imagine stifles the flow of the game.

    Twitch Page
    Hearthstone: mncdover#1994
    Nintendo Network ID: MNC.Dover
    3DS: 1934-0659-5183
    Steam ID
    ElvenshaeBedlamAldo
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Never actually got the hang of good haggling in Catan. The group I get to play with rarely wants to trade unless it's significantly in their favor, moreso if I'm ahead of them.

    What are some concrete examples of trading that gets people to bite?

    1:1 trades are like the bread and butter of that game. 1 sheep for 1 wood, things like that.

    1:1 trades are great. You get stronger. One other person gets stronger in equal measure to you. The rest of the table stays the same. Huge win for you.

    Nobody ever wants my sheep though :(

    ElvenshaeArmoroc
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Fry wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Never actually got the hang of good haggling in Catan. The group I get to play with rarely wants to trade unless it's significantly in their favor, moreso if I'm ahead of them.

    What are some concrete examples of trading that gets people to bite?

    1:1 trades are like the bread and butter of that game. 1 sheep for 1 wood, things like that.

    1:1 trades are great. You get stronger. One other person gets stronger in equal measure to you. The rest of the table stays the same. Huge win for you.

    Nobody ever wants my sheep though :(

    Sheep are definitely the lowest value resource if you are playing without seafarers.

    That said sometimes you can get people to really feed you sheep and depending on your resource spread grab a bunch of event cards and really control the game that way.

  • VyolynceVyolynce Registered User regular
    MNC Dover wrote: »
    In Catan I used to love being a hardass on trade proposals. Someone came to me with a trade, I'd only agree if they threw in another card.

    And this is typically why trading fails, and people ultimately end up not liking the game. Don't get me wrong, it's a legit tactic but I'd imagine stifles the flow of the game.

    Not as much as being repeatedly shafted by the dice so you never even have anything to trade in the first place. That's my main reason for actively disliking the game. Yes, there are workarounds but "playing something else" is also a workaround and usually one with a better payoff.

    CaptainPeacockJustTeeIvellius
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Never actually got the hang of good haggling in Catan. The group I get to play with rarely wants to trade unless it's significantly in their favor, moreso if I'm ahead of them.

    What are some concrete examples of trading that gets people to bite?

    1:1 trades are like the bread and butter of that game. 1 sheep for 1 wood, things like that.

    1:1 trades are great. You get stronger. One other person gets stronger in equal measure to you. The rest of the table stays the same. Huge win for you.

    I don't know about your table, but trading with the guy in the lead is not a 'huge win for you'.
    And then you're left trading with the people with few resources on account of them not being in the lead.

    It's possible that a trade could benefit you more than them. If nobody is trading with the leader, anyone willing to trade can use that as leverage. "I'll give you this for that and you can take it or leave it because nobody else is exactly champing at the bit to give you stuff."

    ChaosHat.com - Twitter - Twitch Stream - Steam: ChaosHat - 3DS: 5215-0009-1949
    SC2: ChaosHat.444 ggtracker
  • MrBodyMrBody Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I always forget this threads bizarrely intense hatred of Catan until it comes up.

    But then I remember that half of the people here have groups that refuse to engage in the game’s core mechanic for whatever reason.

    We don't have to veer into insulting people over people insulting inanimate games.

    As for people refusing to engage in a game's core mechanic, that's exactly why people hate Monopoly so much: nobody ever plays by the actual rules. No way it's longer than Catan if you're not handing out Free Parking money and using the auctions. I've never seen a game last longer than half an hour.

    MrBody on
  • GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    Oh ho ho!

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    MrBody wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I always forget this threads bizarrely intense hatred of Catan until it comes up.

    But then I remember that half of the people here have groups that refuse to engage in the game’s core mechanic for whatever reason.

    We don't have to veer into insulting people over people insulting inanimate games.

    As for people refusing to engage in a game's core mechanic, that's exactly why people hate Monopoly so much: nobody ever plays by the actual rules. No way it's longer than Catan if you're not handing out Free Parking money and using the auctions. I've never seen a game last longer than half an hour.

    No, we hate Monopoly because it has fucking roll to move and paper thin strategy, and it rewards the leader big time. It has a terrible tail end of the game and player elimination. It is a master class in shitty design. This is with playing without any house rules AND the default auction mechanic, which is the only redeemable aspect of the game. I don’t know where this myth of “Monopoly is a good game if you play by the rules” came from, because it clearly is not.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    RiemannLivesdiscriderVyolynceInquisitorCaptainPeacockjakobaggerMojo_JojoJustTeeEpimer
  • JonBobJonBob Registered User regular
    I think most people who bring this up are saying Monopoly is not as bad when played as written, which is true. That's different than saying it's a game they want to play.

    Modern editions remove player elimination, by ending the game when this happens with an immediate scoring of other players according to their total holdings. This, along with no Free Parking, makes the length bearable, and thereby ameliorates the other issues. If you get in a situation where Monopoly is what is happening (a family member insists, etc.), this is how to improve that situation.

    jswidget.php?username=JonBob&numitems=10&header=1&text=none&images=small&show=recentplays&imagesonly=1&imagepos=right&inline=1&domains%5B%5D=boardgame&imagewidget=1
  • Mr. GMr. G Registered User regular
    Clue rules though

    6F32U1X.png
  • JonBobJonBob Registered User regular
    Mr. G wrote: »
    Clue rules though
    :eh:

    The core deduction in Clue is fine, if simple. The roll to move is still lame. 90% of the game is turns where nothing of interest happens, and there's no reason that has to be the case.

    For an old game that does that style of deduction but does it very well, check out Sleuth by Sid Sackson.

    jswidget.php?username=JonBob&numitems=10&header=1&text=none&images=small&show=recentplays&imagesonly=1&imagepos=right&inline=1&domains%5B%5D=boardgame&imagewidget=1
    jergarmarVyolynceHahnsoo1Kristmas Kthulhu
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Never actually got the hang of good haggling in Catan. The group I get to play with rarely wants to trade unless it's significantly in their favor, moreso if I'm ahead of them.

    What are some concrete examples of trading that gets people to bite?

    1:1 trades are like the bread and butter of that game. 1 sheep for 1 wood, things like that.

    1:1 trades are great. You get stronger. One other person gets stronger in equal measure to you. The rest of the table stays the same. Huge win for you.

    I don't know about your table, but trading with the guy in the lead is not a 'huge win for you'.
    And then you're left trading with the people with few resources on account of them not being in the lead.

    It's possible that a trade could benefit you more than them. If nobody is trading with the leader, anyone willing to trade can use that as leverage. "I'll give you this for that and you can take it or leave it because nobody else is exactly champing at the bit to give you stuff."

    Any equal resource trade with the leader benefits them more than you.
    Any unequal resource trade with the leader will simply not be taken by the leader, because he can wait to trade 3:1 or 2:1, or wait for the cards he needs, due to being in the lead.

    Really though, my beef with Catan is sometimes the guy sitting on the 1/12 wins because they get rolled tons.
    And there's nothing you can do to counteract such lopsided probability that freezes you out of all resources.

    discrider on
    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
    VyolynceMojo_JojoJustTee
  • BogartBogart Because I hate you Registered User, Moderator mod
    So Hardback is very good. I got an inordinate amount of pleasure from spelling DIODE and XYLEM with my books.

    MNC DoverDarkPrimusCaptainPeacockToxRhesus PositiveMahnmutElvenshae
  • JonBobJonBob Registered User regular
    I really like Paperback, but I will be surprised if I ever play it again. Hardback is fantastic.

    jswidget.php?username=JonBob&numitems=10&header=1&text=none&images=small&show=recentplays&imagesonly=1&imagepos=right&inline=1&domains%5B%5D=boardgame&imagewidget=1
    MNC DoverChaosHat
  • MrBodyMrBody Registered User regular
    The honeymoon is over with Terraforming Mars.

    Tried moving up to some advanced games using drafting and not the beginner corps.

    And wow does the game go to the players who know the right combos. 50-60 points for the two players first time at advanced, 100-115 for the veterans.

    What got me though was it seemed like the most intuitive thing was to build your economy by increasing production early on, but the pack leaders seemed to all but ignore that and focus solely on one-shot events or really obtuse science icon combos. They all had almost no income/production, but plenty of stuff from events and points from science stuff. Production seemed like a sucker's play.

    (Plants production in particular seemed to get hosed. Why is nearly every attack card in the game focused on destroying plants??)

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    MrBody wrote: »
    The honeymoon is over with Terraforming Mars.

    Tried moving up to some advanced games using drafting and not the beginner corps.

    And wow does the game go to the players who know the right combos. 50-60 points for the two players first time at advanced, 100-115 for the veterans.

    What got me though was it seemed like the most intuitive thing was to build your economy by increasing production early on, but the pack leaders seemed to all but ignore that and focus solely on one-shot events or really obtuse science icon combos. They all had almost no income/production, but plenty of stuff from events and points from science stuff. Production seemed like a sucker's play.

    (Plants production in particular seemed to get hosed. Why is nearly every attack card in the game focused on destroying plants??)
    Because Terraforming Mars isn't balanced. :P
    Were you guys drafting cards as well? I'd be very surprised otherwise, that two players managed to get enough each to make it work for them. Hell, even with drafting, I'd be surprised two players could successfully split on science/event focus and pull out so far ahead.

  • Ah_PookAh_Pook Registered User regular
    Drafting with beginners is gonna be bad. The entire drafting game is dedrafting stuff that your opponents need, and new players are going to hand the game to whoever theyre passing to, while also not knowing what cards they need to keep for themselves. Personally I don't like drafting in TM regardless of skill level, but until everyone on even footing it's just going to add a bunch of time and frustration.

    Did you play with the Corporate Era cards? I also don't like those. The corporations are fun though.

    Pancho needs your prayers it's true
    But save a few for Lefty too
  • MrBodyMrBody Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    Yes, drafting. First game was no drafting at our (new players) request. Next 2 games the veterans wanted drafting and assured us it was just for variety and was actually less snowbally....uh huh.

    The thing is that the winning strategies just made us scratch our heads. I prefer strategy games where even if I can't see good strategies at first, once I do I can go "ooooooh" and catch on. In our game someone pulls out some science card (something like draw a random card and if it's some other card you get VP) and the veterans are going "Oh wow gg" and the new players just stared at it cluelessly unable to figure out what made it so broken.

    I think my opinion on TM is sliding from "easy to grasp euro-ish I wouldn't mind" to "for hardcore Dominion players only".

    Not sure what the corporate era cards are. We did use the non-beginner corps. I stupidly picked the plant specializing corp not knowing every attack card in the game targeted plants.

    MrBody on
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    The attack cards in TM are such bad themeing.

    Why does crashing a meteor into the planet or whatever deplete one specific player's stockpile of plants?

    The game is pretty darn minimal player interaction but the they had to throw in some pretty lame attack cards as the few forms of interaction. One of the weakest parts of the game easily.

    VyolynceAuralynx
  • MrBodyMrBody Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    I wouldn't mind so much if they were at least spread out to other areas.

    But yeah it doesn't seem like much thought was put into them. "Do this beneficial thing that you would have wanted to do anyway, but also make someone lose 2 plants." Would have been better if they had dedicated attack cards so you'd have to weigh helping yourself or hurting a rival.

    I take that back. My opinion is wavering between "a good game for hardcore tableau genre players only" and "a game with a good first impression that doesn't hold up".

    MrBody on
  • VyolynceVyolynce Registered User regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    The attack cards in TM are such bad themeing.

    Why does crashing a meteor into the planet or whatever deplete one specific player's stockpile of plants?

    The game is pretty darn minimal player interaction but the they had to throw in some pretty lame attack cards as the few forms of interaction. One of the weakest parts of the game easily.

    That said I have seen a heavy plant strategy pay off and it crushed big time. Playtesting probably noticed that and the events are likely a check on it, but I agree those being the most common form of interaction is a huge feel-bad.

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    FWIW, the negative part is optional, I'm pretty sure. But also, why would you ever not do it? :S
    And to " Next 2 games the veterans wanted drafting and assured us it was just for variety and was actually less snowbally....uh huh.": If they believed this when they said it, lol. Seeing 4 cards VS seeing the same 4 cards plus 6 more. How in the world could that be worse for them / better for new players?


    Anyway ...
    Played Riverboat last night. It's a nice-enough eruo that I'll happily play again at some point, but is definitely in that camp of "I would never own this." It feels nice building out your board, and the crop-placement puzzle is pleasant - just enough things going on at once to feel slightly snagged on everything, but not so much going on that it's overwhelming. It's definitely more multiplayer-solitaire, with the only interaction coming from what you might expect opponents to pick before you from the limited supplies of pieces each round.

  • Ah_PookAh_Pook Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    MrBody wrote: »
    Yes, drafting. First game was no drafting at our (new players) request. Next 2 games the veterans wanted drafting and assured us it was just for variety and was actually less snowbally....uh huh.

    The thing is that the winning strategies just made us scratch our heads. I prefer strategy games where even if I can't see good strategies at first, once I do I can go "ooooooh" and catch on. In our game someone pulls out some science card (something like draw a random card and if it's some other card you get VP) and the veterans are going "Oh wow gg" and the new players just stared at it cluelessly unable to figure out what made it so broken.

    I think my opinion on TM is sliding from "easy to grasp euro-ish I wouldn't mind" to "for hardcore Dominion players only".

    Not sure what the corporate era cards are. We did use the non-beginner corps. I stupidly picked the plant specializing corp not knowing every attack card in the game targeted plants.

    The winning strategy sans CE cards is generally build an economy and terraform a ton, while also scoring some points through some cards that pop up along the way. With CE cards its generally drag out the game forever playing cards that don't progress the game towards it's end but they score you tons of points. The former is snappy and fun, the latter is... Not. Y'know imo.

    Also it sounds like you're describing search for life which y'all are either playing wrong or someone is fucking with you. That card is barely worth playing imo, let alone some broken game winner.

    The attack cards can be annoying it's true, but they're mainly to balance plants which are hugely powerful, and they generally aren't going to cost you the game even if you get attacked with every one of them. They're also pretty easy to play around... If your oppponents are sitting on a pile of resources and could potentially drop a rock on you then get rid of your plants immediately. You're going to lose some plants to them here or there (especially if you're the plant guy), but it's not a game ender for you.

    Edit: also 100 isn't some incredible score so I'd say they didn't really blow yall up so much as yall need to play the game more to get competitive. 50 is quite bad, but understandable for early days. Its a card game at heart so being able to spot the good cards and knowing what to keep etc takes a bit. And again whoever suggested the draft, next time tell them to stuff it ;)

    Ah_Pook on
    Pancho needs your prayers it's true
    But save a few for Lefty too
  • MrBodyMrBody Registered User regular
    Ah_Pook wrote: »
    The winning strategy sans CE cards is generally build an economy and terraform a ton, while also scoring some points through some cards that pop up along the way. With CE cards its generally drag out the game forever playing cards that don't progress the game towards it's end but they score you tons of points. The former is snappy and fun, the latter is... Not. Y'know imo.

    Like the microbe and animal cards? What are some examples.

  • Ah_PookAh_Pook Registered User regular
    Examples for what? Animals and microbes are both powerful in the base card set, but they also don't distract from the base level terraforming that propels the game forward. The CE cards have lots of stuff that lets your spend resources on points instead of Terraforming, and also you have to spend a lot more time building your economy since you start with zero production instead of 1. Both of these things detract from the game immensely imo.

    Pancho needs your prayers it's true
    But save a few for Lefty too
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Oh right. I'd also meant to comment on Search For Life being super-terrible. Last game that was played, the person got 0 points. The deck is fucking massive and it's hit rate should not expect to be great. <_<

    Vyolynce
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    My experience from having played all of two games, both games using starter corps and drafting, was that the game is over so fast that any sort of production didn't pay off unless it was played in like the first two turns. I think I would prefer a game that starts a little slower and lets you actually build up some kind of production.

    Of course, it is entirely possible that I might hate it if I try it, but I sort of want to try it. The games I played felt very point-salad in a way I did not enjoy, so I'm not really looking forward to playing starter corps again.

    Fry on
  • 38thDoe38thDoe lets never be stupid again wait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered User regular
    Starter corporations is an option in Terraforming Mars? What is the alternative? Starting with 20 Euro and that's it?



    steam_sig.png
  • Ah_PookAh_Pook Registered User regular
    Starter corps get there starter 10 cards free, but have no special power. Good for beginners to not have to figure out what cards to keep up front, but also didn't give them much direction as far as a special thing to try to lean into.

    Pancho needs your prayers it's true
    But save a few for Lefty too
  • VyolynceVyolynce Registered User regular
    In his column today, the head designer of Magic explores his definition of "a game", namely what a game requires and what you are doing if you are not playing a game. More relevant to this thread than the actual MTG thread, I thought it was an interesting read.

    Ivellius
  • captainkcaptaink TexasRegistered User regular
    Definitely prefer non-Starter corps and the slower start of 0 production. It really makes finding cards that give you steel/titanium/plant production impactful.

  • Ah_PookAh_Pook Registered User regular
    captaink wrote: »
    Definitely prefer non-Starter corps and the slower start of 0 production. It really makes finding cards that give you steel/titanium/plant production impactful.

    Note that you only start with zero production if you play with the Corporate Era cards, which is separate from using the starter corp or not. You can have some players play with starter corps and some not, with our without the Corporate Era cards.

    Pancho needs your prayers it's true
    But save a few for Lefty too
    captaink
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    In his column today, the head designer of Magic explores his definition of "a game", namely what a game requires and what you are doing if you are not playing a game. More relevant to this thread than the actual MTG thread, I thought it was an interesting read.

    I disagree with most everything he says.
    Mainly:
    - Goals: I think a game must have an active goal. His assertion that Survival Minecraft is a game because 'Don't die' is a passive goal, whereas Creative Minecraft is not due to its lack, is ridiculous.
    - Agency: I don't think a game has to provide true agency, but rather only the illusion of it. Tictactoe is still a game to the player who has not realised how to solve it yet.
    - Restrictions: Sure, I guess, the thing you must want to achieve should be hard. Saying physical tasks like running or hitting a ball against a wall are not games because you can just do them is underselling the inherent difficulties of those tasks
    - Real life irrelevance: Yes, games are sometimes test beds for real life. But this seems to imply that 'gamified' activities are not games, or that the pro tennis player cannot play tennis for fun.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    In his column today, the head designer of Magic explores his definition of "a game", namely what a game requires and what you are doing if you are not playing a game. More relevant to this thread than the actual MTG thread, I thought it was an interesting read.

    I disagree with most everything he says.
    Mainly:
    - Goals: I think a game must have an active goal. His assertion that Survival Minecraft is a game because 'Don't die' is a passive goal, whereas Creative Minecraft is not due to its lack, is ridiculous.
    - Agency: I don't think a game has to provide true agency, but rather only the illusion of it. Tictactoe is still a game to the player who has not realised how to solve it yet.
    - Restrictions: Sure, I guess, the thing you must want to achieve should be hard. Saying physical tasks like running or hitting a ball against a wall are not games because you can just do them is underselling the inherent difficulties of those tasks
    - Real life irrelevance: Yes, games are sometimes test beds for real life. But this seems to imply that 'gamified' activities are not games, or that the pro tennis player cannot play tennis for fun.
    ... What?
    Goals: I didn't realize I was playing a game all these years of using Photoshop. :P How is "pick things up, put things down, make a pattern of things" a game? Ironically, I was going to make the joke about LEGO before reading the article, so ...
    Restrictions: He ... he literally says that about Tic-Tac-Toe in the article. He even says Candyland is a game if you believe you have agency by drawing a card - something that is definitely wrong, but believable as a child. You don't disagree with him at all.
    Restrictions: I don't even know what you're getting at.
    RLI: ... What? How in any way do you draw a conclusion like "a professional cannot play a game for fun"? :S

    ElvenshaeCustom SpecialMojo_Jojo
  • jergarmarjergarmar inside your hollow manRegistered User regular
    edited June 2018
    discrider wrote: »
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    In his column today, the head designer of Magic explores his definition of "a game", namely what a game requires and what you are doing if you are not playing a game. More relevant to this thread than the actual MTG thread, I thought it was an interesting read.

    I disagree with most everything he says.
    Mainly:
    - Goals: I think a game must have an active goal. His assertion that Survival Minecraft is a game because 'Don't die' is a passive goal, whereas Creative Minecraft is not due to its lack, is ridiculous.
    - Agency: I don't think a game has to provide true agency, but rather only the illusion of it. Tictactoe is still a game to the player who has not realised how to solve it yet.
    - Restrictions: Sure, I guess, the thing you must want to achieve should be hard. Saying physical tasks like running or hitting a ball against a wall are not games because you can just do them is underselling the inherent difficulties of those tasks
    - Real life irrelevance: Yes, games are sometimes test beds for real life. But this seems to imply that 'gamified' activities are not games, or that the pro tennis player cannot play tennis for fun.

    I was going to disagree with you strongly, but on reflection I think I just disagree on some minor points.

    I think a good case could be made that Survival/Creative Minecraft shows what is/isn't a game, but just based on the "don't die" goal? Doesn't that game fit his own "restrictions" category better? That is, Survival is a game because the goal is progression and most of the stuff you can do is locked away, and thus in Creative if everything is unlocked and you can fly, there's no goal and therefore no game. And shoot, even in Survival mode you can turn off dying and just make it a progression game. I'm not making a rock-solid argument here, I'm just saying that even his own points seem a bit half-baked.

    On the subject of agency, isn't your point exactly what he said? That Tic-Tac-Toe is a game until you know the optimal moves to make in any situation? He even made a similar point about Candyland, that it could be a game to a kid who thought he could affect the card he drew.

    I think you're right about "real-life relevance", that it's really fuzzy and of questionable worth. Now, perhaps he would say that a "gamified activity" is still a game, because you've manufactured a negative repercussion (even if just "losing a game"), but your point about "pro game players" is great; it shows not only a specific example, but I feel like it says something even more fundamental: don't we ALL manufacture repercussions, especially at work, that sometimes dwarf the real repercussions? Bill Gates worked at Microsoft long after he was wealthy, long after he really had to be concerned about the actual ramifications of his performance. Was it a game to him at that point? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding his point, but as stated I don't think it holds much water.

    I think this was an article that needed a bit more thought, but I'll grant that "goals" and "agency" are probably good starting points for what makes something a game.

    EDIT: I was thinking about what makes life itself NOT a game, and perhaps you could put even this under the category of "agency"; that is, if you can choose not to pursue a particular goal, then it's not life. Or perhaps life is a game where, exactly opposite of Thermonuclear War, "the only winning move is TO play".

    jergarmar on
    When I was a child, I had a fever...
    jswidget.php?username=jergarmar&numitems=7&text=none&images=small&show=hot10&imagesonly=1&imagepos=right&inline=1&domains%5B%5D=boardgame&imagewidget=1
    My BoardGameGeek profile
    Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
    ArcticLancer
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Real-life relevance could indeed use a lot of fleshing out, because it's basically the "fudge-it" category that attempts to separate every obstacle you encounter in day-to-day life from a game. However knowing the intent doesn't make it any less fuzzy in his presentation, and yes, absolutely, it could have used a lot more time in the oven. But I'm still lost as to how we're arriving at playing a game professionally making the game no longer a game?

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    In his column today, the head designer of Magic explores his definition of "a game", namely what a game requires and what you are doing if you are not playing a game. More relevant to this thread than the actual MTG thread, I thought it was an interesting read.

    I disagree with most everything he says.
    Mainly:
    - Goals: I think a game must have an active goal. His assertion that Survival Minecraft is a game because 'Don't die' is a passive goal, whereas Creative Minecraft is not due to its lack, is ridiculous.
    - Agency: I don't think a game has to provide true agency, but rather only the illusion of it. Tictactoe is still a game to the player who has not realised how to solve it yet.
    - Restrictions: Sure, I guess, the thing you must want to achieve should be hard. Saying physical tasks like running or hitting a ball against a wall are not games because you can just do them is underselling the inherent difficulties of those tasks
    - Real life irrelevance: Yes, games are sometimes test beds for real life. But this seems to imply that 'gamified' activities are not games, or that the pro tennis player cannot play tennis for fun.
    ... What?
    Goals: I didn't realize I was playing a game all these years of using Photoshop. :P How is "pick things up, put things down, make a pattern of things" a game? Ironically, I was going to make the joke about LEGO before reading the article, so ...
    Restrictions: He ... he literally says that about Tic-Tac-Toe in the article. He even says Candyland is a game if you believe you have agency by drawing a card - something that is definitely wrong, but believable as a child. You don't disagree with him at all.
    Restrictions: I don't even know what you're getting at.
    RLI: ... What? How in any way do you draw a conclusion like "a professional cannot play a game for fun"? :S

    Goals: The point was his differentiation here is ridiculous and neither survival minecraft or creative minecraft is a game.

    Agency: Yeah, I guess I was asleep and we do agree, but I'd call it out specifically as the impression of Agency, and things like Settlers of Catan can cease to be games even if other contemporous players disagree.

    Restrictions: Hitting a ball against a wall, or running, is a game so long as the other qualifiers are met (most notably, trying to acheive something)

    RLI: He seems to posit that just because a game typically has no real life impact, that no game has real life impact. Therefore what people do as a job cannot be a game. Even jobs where you play a game professionally.
    His example is a flight sim being a game, and yet I bet some pilots take that training incredibly seriously.
    A more apt qualifier I think is you must be having fun, and if you play a game seriously you have ceased playing a game at all.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    I think if you're a paid e-sports professional, then playing Quake or League of Legends or whatever at your day job is not a game, it's work. You could still go home and play a few rounds of LoL with your friends for fun and that would be a game, but when you're on TV playing for cash and have contracts and sponsors that care about your performance, it's not a game.

    Same goes for regular sports, for that matter. I could go play a game of baseball with my friends, but to a pro player in MLB, it's not a game.

This discussion has been closed.