Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

kidsdungeonadventure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

#21

Post by kragen »

burgerbrain wrote: post #7

I've got to say, I find even Monopoly to be a terrible game. My strategy for the game can be summed up as: "buy the property if I can, otherwise pay rent if I have to". I almost never stray from that strategy, and even when I do, it's not like those exceptions make the game any more interesting.

Whenever some player doesn't buy a property and it goes up for auction, the players' bids are interestingly strategic. The optimal strategy at that point is not to "buy the property if you can", at least in a game of more than two players — two players using that strategy will bankrupt each other quickly, paying $3000 for Vermont Avenue and the like, and someone else will win. (It's probably not the optimal strategy in a two-player game either, but that's not as obvious.)

If the other players will bid less than the sticker price, then it's a better strategy to decline the sticker price and pick the property up in the ensuing auction. Under some circumstances (e.g. all the other players are broke) you can pick it up for a song in this case.

For those who are fuzzy on the rules: http://richard_wilding.tripod.com/monorules.htm

Re: Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

#22

Post by JoshTriplett »

jerf wrote: post #13
bengarvey wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I have opened up this debate among friends, your counter point is the one brought up the most. I think they can learn taking turns and accepting outcomes while making decisions, even if at the start those decisions are random. Even if I concede that Candyland has a place in the progression, kids jump past it so fast I wonder if it is even worth including. Thanks for reading and responding, though.

How do you plan on addressing the problem of the result of the game being a forgone conclusion if you include meaningful choices, pretty much by definition of "meaningful"? That's the core of my point, not really the learning or discipline bits, and there's a certain mathematical inevitability about it; choices -> adults winning against young children. Or having to throw the game, and kids aren't dumb, they notice th…

Don't play as adversaries, then. The original article suggests a simplified role-playing game, where the adult effectively just implements the game mechanics and acts as a GM. You don't have to structure it like an RPG, but any game with meaningful choices that remains balanced will have a similar structure: the adult implementing a game for the kid. That's not "throwing the game", that's redefining the idea of the game.

Consider that the job of a GM isn't to beat the players by any means possible, but to make a fun game with the right level of challenge. In an adversarial situation you'd call that "throwing the game". But in a game where the GM simply implements the game mechanics, they just act as an infinitely flexible interpreter of desired actions and generator of sensible results. In other words, you've implemented a single-player game for the kid(s).

That said, I do think "games" like Candyland have a place; they're just really uninteresting as games. They do something interesting and allow interaction. So do toys that light up or make noise when you interact with them. Candyland demonstrates a structured form of interaction, and a concept of game rules (moving your token according to defined rules rather than just marching it across the board as you please). Calling it a "game" is a stretch, but that doesn't make it worthless.

Re: Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

#23

Post by hugh3 »

jerf wrote: post #2

The purpose of Candyland is to play a game, without playing a game. It's for toddlers to learn to take turns, to accept negative or positive outcomes without stomping off in a huff, and to play a game with a level playing field between the adults and children... and at the level we are talking about, if there is a meaningful choice at all , then the child, or perhaps rather toddler , will simply lose. It's more than…

Your comment reminds me of when I used to play Trivial Pursuit with my family (all much older) when I was eight or so. Of course I hardly knew anything at the time, but quickly cottoned on to the fact that "Hitler" seemed to be the answer more often than anything else, so I'd just answer "Hitler" to anything I didn't know.

Re: Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

#24

Post by kragen »

[deleted] wrote: post #20
jerf wrote: post #2

The purpose of Candyland is to play a game, without playing a game. It's for toddlers to learn to take turns, to accept negative or positive outcomes without stomping off in a huff, and to play a game with a level playing field between the adults and children... and at the level we are talking about, if there is a meaningful choice at all , then the child, or perhaps rather toddler , will simply lose. It's more than…

[deleted]

Most games are bad, but there are plenty of good old games. Tic-tac-toe, soccer, chess, go, nine men's morris, fanorona, alquerque, checkers, truco, canasta, gin rummy, pool, the numerous variations of mancala (wari, kalah, and dozens of others), shogi, gomoku ("Pente"), reversi ("Othello"), chinese checkers, and on and on.

So I think your statement, "It's only really in the late 80's early 90's stuff really developed in the board game world," really misses the mark. It's true that the US had a deeply impoverished board-game culture for decades, especially with regard to kids' boardgames. And it's true that we're in the middle of an unprecedented explosion of excellent boardgames. But there were already a number of excellent boardgames in existence.

Re: Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

#25

Post by jcnnghm »

burgerbrain wrote: post #7

I've got to say, I find even Monopoly to be a terrible game. My strategy for the game can be summed up as: "buy the property if I can, otherwise pay rent if I have to". I almost never stray from that strategy, and even when I do, it's not like those exceptions make the game any more interesting.

Are you sure you aren't thinking about the children's variant of Monopoly?

Monopoly proper is all about trading, which is in turn all about risk management, probabilities, and leveraging your holdings. If your strategy for Monopoly can be summed up as "buy the property if I can, otherwise pay rent if I have to", you aren't actually playing the game.

Re: Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

#26

Post by Vivtek »

bengarvey wrote: post #4
jerf wrote: post #2

The purpose of Candyland is to play a game, without playing a game. It's for toddlers to learn to take turns, to accept negative or positive outcomes without stomping off in a huff, and to play a game with a level playing field between the adults and children... and at the level we are talking about, if there is a meaningful choice at all , then the child, or perhaps rather toddler , will simply lose. It's more than…

When I have opened up this debate among friends, your counter point is the one brought up the most. I think they can learn taking turns and accepting outcomes while making decisions, even if at the start those decisions are random. Even if I concede that Candyland has a place in the progression, kids jump past it so fast I wonder if it is even worth including. Thanks for reading and responding, though.

Well, obviously you have a good relationship with your 3yo if she enjoys playing an adversarial game with you, but not all kids are the same.

My son is 12 and still enjoyed Candyland and Chutes and Ladders as late as last year (while also starting to like Clue and Monopoly). The risk-free social aspect of a non-game game like Candyland is really important for some kids; it's really more of a role-playing situation for the whole social dynamic of playing a game in a small group than anything else.

My daughter, now, with her you're right - she tired of Candyland pretty quick. As everything with kids: it depends on the kid.

Re: Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

#27

Post by raganwald »

jerf wrote: post #2

The purpose of Candyland is to play a game, without playing a game. It's for toddlers to learn to take turns, to accept negative or positive outcomes without stomping off in a huff, and to play a game with a level playing field between the adults and children... and at the level we are talking about, if there is a meaningful choice at all , then the child, or perhaps rather toddler , will simply lose. It's more than…

Meaningful is not strictly equivalent to influencing the outcome. Imagine a typical "racing" game where players advance along a track. The track could incorporate forks such that mathematically, all choices are equivalent. But the entertainment value of the forks may differ. Some children may want to cut through the "garden," others through the "playground."

Re: Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

#28

Post by jbri »

trafficlight wrote: post #14
perokreco wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have pretty interesting Monopoly games. Mine usually end up with interplayer corporations, loans for building and investing, bailouts, mergers and similar.

At this point you aren't really playing Monopoly anymore. You've developed your own game using the Monopoly pieces.

As long as everyone plays by the game rules, any out-of-game interactions (such as agreeing to pool money and property) don't mean you're not playing monopoly any more.

Re: Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

#29

Post by raganwald »

burgerbrain wrote: post #7

I've got to say, I find even Monopoly to be a terrible game. My strategy for the game can be summed up as: "buy the property if I can, otherwise pay rent if I have to". I almost never stray from that strategy, and even when I do, it's not like those exceptions make the game any more interesting.

Oh?

Mine, at least until people cotton onto it, is to be a "Slum Landlord." I buy and trade for the cheapest sets I can find, and then I put four houses on each property. Remember, they're slums, so you don't expect hotels. If I can corner the market on houses[1], no matter what the other players do, they can't bankrupt me with rents because they can't improve their properties.

This doesn't work in a game where people ignore the housing shortage rule, of course. But If you toss that rule out, I don't think you're playing Monopoly any more.

[1]: There are 32 houses, so if you own 21 houses, it is impossible for anyone else to upgrade a three property group to hotels. If you own 25 houses, no other player can upgrade any group. It's fairly easy for two players to control the property market and kill the other players off.

Re: Hating on Candyland: Why most games for kids are awful

#30

Post by jerf »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #22
jerf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you plan on addressing the problem of the result of the game being a forgone conclusion if you include meaningful choices, pretty much by definition of "meaningful"? That's the core of my point, not really the learning or discipline bits, and there's a certain mathematical inevitability about it; choices -> adults winning against young children. Or having to throw the game, and kids aren't dumb, they notice th…

Don't play as adversaries, then. The original article suggests a simplified role-playing game, where the adult effectively just implements the game mechanics and acts as a GM. You don't have to structure it like an RPG, but any game with meaningful choices that remains balanced will have a similar structure: the adult implementing a game for the kid. That's not "throwing the game", that's redefining the idea of the g…

Actually, I'd pretty much agree with you wholesale. The only thing I'd further add is that there should be both adversarial and non-adversarial gaming in the mix. There is a certain element of maturity building you get out of adversarial "gaming" with Candyland that non-adversarial gaming either can't introduce, or will have a much harder time introducing, and vice versa.
Post reply on HN