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

41–50 of 63 posts

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

#41

Post by sidek »

burgerbrain wrote: post #10
andrewflnr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what you mean. It doesn't get interesting until you start making deals and trades with the other players, especially when everyone agrees to relax the rules a little. The plotting starts to get messy as you try to figure out who is getting screwed worse in a given deal, or when you have to work out three-way trades.

I find a much better game if you're into "deals" is Risk. You know you've had fun when the cleanup involves finding all the pieces that were put on ballistic paths in the final forfeit gesture of the game... good times.

Risk is incredibly frustrating, though. I cannot tell you how many times 18-man armies have been mowed down by lone men

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

#42

Post by Splines »

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.

A suggestion to you and anyone else who doesn't like Monopoly - given the chance, try the video game versions of it. The game progresses much faster, the standard rules are enforced, and you'll start seeing the strategy of the game peeking through behind the monotony of dice roles and rent payments.

It's all about getting monopolies, and preventing other players from doing so. Luck is still part of the game, but certain parts of the game (go to jail, advance to nearest unsold property/boardwalk) give weight to certain parts of the board.

In our household, we like to play with the speed die, which adds an additional strategy that I like: It forces players to advance to the nearest unsold property, or if all are sold, it advances the players to the nearest unmortgaged property.

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

#43

Post by ars »

LordBodak wrote: post #33
raganwald wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

The limitation on housing is the key to the game's structure. Most people don't seem to play it this way (letting players build hotels if they have the money, regardless of the number of actual plastic houses remaining), and it screws the game up. Not to mention house rules like "free parking" artificially adding money to the game.

I think they play it that way because the houses always get lost, so you never know how many there really are supposed to be. So you use stand-in pieces, with no limit.

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

#44

Post by Almaviva »

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…

> The mentioned Connect 4, for instance, is relatively simple and can be effectively "solved" by an 8 or 9 year old, for instance, so a 8yo and an adult are still not separated by such a large gulf that the game is a joke.

Interesting post, but your Connect 4 game sounds extremely, extremely poor:)

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

#45

Post by sliverstorm »

What's wrong with 'terrible' games like Candyland existing? Choices are not things that ONLY happen in games. When kids are ready, they'll move up.

When I was a kid, I chose not to play Candyland. I chose to play Battleship and Stratego and Checkers and Chess and (much later) Magic.

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

#46

Post by sliverstorm »

Alex3917 wrote: post #39
jberryman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trivial Pursuit is candyland for grownups.

I've never understood trivial pursuit. Every single science question can be easily answered by anyone with a fourth grade education could answer, and yet all the other categories involve things like obscure B movies from the 1930s that no one has ever heard of.

The conclusion I always drew was, logically speaking, when Trivial Pursuit was created it must be that 4th grade science was about as well-known as slightly outdated pop trivia.

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

#47

Post by michael_dorfman »

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…

Exactly. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Candyland is the best game ever for children of a certain age. I went to great lengths to import a copy here to Norway, and my 4 and 5-year-olds absolutely love it.

The time will come, soon enough, when they want a game that requires them to make decisions, and plot strategy-- and when that day comes, there are plenty of such games to choose from. (My two older daughters both jumped straight to chess when they got to that stage.) But right now, game playing is about the social aspects.

In fact, prior to the arrival of Candyland, my five-year-old (then four) would make us play board games without any rules. She'd roll the dice, and move the pieces around randomly, and have us do the same. That was the part that was fun.

Lately, she's gotten into card games, and her favorite at the moment is a game of her own invention, called "Stop and Go". You divide the cards equally among the players, and each player has a stack, face down. When it is your turn, you turn over the top card. If it is red, you stop. If it is black, you turn over another card, and keep going until you hit a red card. The first person to go through their whole stack wins. No strategy, no decisions-- from a game theory standpoint, it's the same as a lottery drawing-- but that's the beauty of it.

EDIT: for clarity.

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

#48

Post by cubicle67 »

warning: paypal gripe ahead

looks like a great idea (his game) so I decide for $6 it's worth a shot. My only payment choice is cc via PayPal, but PayPal are demanding my home address ("Please note we do not accept PO Boxes. If we are unable to match your address against Australia Post records, we may ask you to verify it by providing documentation."), full name and valid home phone number.

Sorry, but they're not getting them. I'm still interested in the game though.

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

#49

Post by oskarkv »

raganwald wrote: post #29
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 peopl…

When I read your comment I started tinking about Settlers of Catan. I think SoC is more interesting than Monopoly, but there is still way too much luck involved for my taste. I have been trying to come up with a way to take the luck out of SoC, but haven't come up with a good way yet. Of course, one might need to stray quite a bit from the original design. Any ideas?

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

#50

Post by xiaoma »

Tom Vasel, of Dice Tower, reviewed Candyland. After reviewing 999 other games, his daughters pretty much bullied him into doing a video for Candyland. He panned it and rightfully so, but he also spent some time on what makes it so appealing to children. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tas5aCeNgEU

Other than the hundreds of other kids games that offer better alternatives, he also suggested letting each player draw four cards and choose which one to play. This way, there's still a lot of luck and the kids will still win sometimes, but it's not completely passive.

I have to agree with Tom. It's hard like a game that gives kids no choices. In life people do have choices.

Post reply on HN