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

Why we still love board games

timharford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: Why we still love board games

#101

Post by JimWestergren »

endersshadow wrote: post #80
JimWestergren wrote: post #49

I absolutely love board games and card games. And I love to think about game mechanics. If I would not be a web developer I would love to work with this kind of game development. I have developed a version of Magic the Gathering which is played with a normal 52 card deck (one deck per person) with much more simple rules and good strategy (better?) and less luck. I have played it around 100 times and the rules are fin…

I'm very curious--is there a way for me to play this game? I'd love to get the rules from you and try it out. I loved the mechanics in Magic when I was younger, and I'd love to not have to buy all the cards and worry about building a deck, and just be able to play the game with my fiance without telling her it's Magic.

I will get back to you once I have translated it. Shoot me an email.

Re: Why we still love board games

#102

Post by theycallmemorty »

msluyter wrote: post #85
luu wrote: post #3

What's interesting to me is new board games aren't just variants on existing games; there's noticable innovation in board game "technology". If you ever play board games from the 80s and 90s, they often feel dated and clunky, even more so than video games from the same era. I recently went back and played some classic Avalon Hill games that were popular when I was a kid. I can't believe me and my friends spent so muc…

Hardcore boardgamer checking in. Some random thoughts... Our gaming group tends to binge on a given game; if we like it, we'll play it dozens of times and then burnout and never play it again. One game that's stood the test of time is PowerGrid. It's rarely anyone's first choice, but it's the second choice for a lot of us, so it comes out often. Often, at the end of the evening when we're pretty tired, we'll play car…

How many Power Grid maps do you own? I've found Power Grid gets boring after playing the same map more than a few times.

Re: Why we still love board games

#103

Post by msluyter »

theycallmemorty wrote: post #102
msluyter wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardcore boardgamer checking in. Some random thoughts... Our gaming group tends to binge on a given game; if we like it, we'll play it dozens of times and then burnout and never play it again. One game that's stood the test of time is PowerGrid. It's rarely anyone's first choice, but it's the second choice for a lot of us, so it comes out often. Often, at the end of the evening when we're pretty tired, we'll play car…

How many Power Grid maps do you own? I've found Power Grid gets boring after playing the same map more than a few times.

We actually have all of the expansions. They add a small but non-trivial element to the game. The additional powerplant deck also helps; otherwise, you begin to memorize the plants and know to wait until 25/26 hit the board and whatnot.

If I have a complaint with Powergrid, it's that our group has collectively opted into a strategy of delaying the start of phase 2. Sometimes this grinds on interminably such that we skip it entirely, and then enter phase 3 with giant cash hordes and bizarrely high priced powerplant auctions. It's still pretty fun, but sometimes feels a bit broken.

Re: Why we still love board games

#104

Post by dspeyer »

gliese1337 wrote: post #96
luu wrote: post #3

What's interesting to me is new board games aren't just variants on existing games; there's noticable innovation in board game "technology". If you ever play board games from the 80s and 90s, they often feel dated and clunky, even more so than video games from the same era. I recently went back and played some classic Avalon Hill games that were popular when I was a kid. I can't believe me and my friends spent so muc…

> Agricola and Dominion fixed the problems Caylus had by adding significant randomization. Not only does that add strategic variety to the games [2], it also means that anyone can win any given game. While Agricola and Dominion do a pretty darn good job of it, it's often a matter of individual opinion whether adding randomization is a 'fix' or not. I hate playing a game where I feel like I could lose by pure chance n…

> While Agricola and Dominion do a pretty darn good job of it, it's often a matter of individual opinion whether adding randomization is a 'fix' or not. I hate playing a game where I feel like I could lose by pure chance no matter what my level of skill is.

Le Havre (sort of the sequel to Agricola) improves on this. The ordering of the buildings is partly random, and can result in very different games, but it's symmetric to the players and all the information comes at the beginning.

Re: Why we still love board games

#105

Post by dspeyer »

msluyter wrote: post #103
theycallmemorty wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many Power Grid maps do you own? I've found Power Grid gets boring after playing the same map more than a few times.

We actually have all of the expansions. They add a small but non-trivial element to the game. The additional powerplant deck also helps; otherwise, you begin to memorize the plants and know to wait until 25/26 hit the board and whatnot. If I have a complaint with Powergrid, it's that our group has collectively opted into a strategy of delaying the start of phase 2. Sometimes this grinds on interminably such that we s…

I've seen that a lot. Part of the reason can be plant starvation -- I'm not going to do a big build if I can't power them, so Benelux helps. Also, it helps to select regions with high connectivity (low diameter). If the one player who wants step 2 can't reach the only open space, there's a stall.

I do wonder if the rules could be tweaked to give some reasonable reward to a step 2 starter.

Re: Why we still love board games

#106

Post by b0rsuk »

michaelochurch wrote: post #20
luu wrote: post #3

What's interesting to me is new board games aren't just variants on existing games; there's noticable innovation in board game "technology". If you ever play board games from the 80s and 90s, they often feel dated and clunky, even more so than video games from the same era. I recently went back and played some classic Avalon Hill games that were popular when I was a kid. I can't believe me and my friends spent so muc…

Caylus was wildly popular for a year or two, but it's rare to see people play it now. Ironically, the game designer was too good at removing the element of luck for the game to be popular. Ah, yes. I had this experience with my card game, Ambition ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S7lsZKzHuuhoTb2Wj_L3zrhH... ). I came up with the concept when I was overseas (Budapest Semesters in Mathematics, fall 2003) and had l…

I think Seasons has a low random factor compared to other card games. This is despite the fact the game incorporates both cards and dice. You can play it online for free on http://boardgamearena.com . You can watch people play without registering.

1) Rather than starting with a random hand, the game starts with a draft. Each player gets some random cards, he must pick one of them and pass them to the next player. So even if you get all "great cards" at first, you can only take one. By the time your cards go back to you, pieces of your dream combo might be gone. 2) Dice are used for option selection, not tests of success/failure. Players+1 dice are rolled, each player picks one. The last player usually has an interesting choice too, because the die that wasn't picked determines how much time passes in the game. 3) Cards are balanced very well. Out of 50 cards, there are only 2 clear stinkers: Balance of Ishtar and Idol of the Familiar. The rest are so well balanced the game gets away with "you get -5 points per card in hand at the end of the game" rule. 4) Many card-drawing effects offer you a choice. Amulet of Fire makes you take 4 cards and discard 3 of them. Divine Chalice works in a very similar way, so does Naria. You can even activate a power which gives you a choice between 2 cards when you draw one (draws are very rare in this game, it's entirely possible to win the game without a single card past your initial 9). 5) 3 times per game, for a price of negative VP, you can bend the rules. This is an another airbag against random screwage.

So in summary, there is a random factor but best players keep winning consistently.

My longer description of the game: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?6825-B...

In general, I like games which have randomized options but (pretty much) deterministic results of actions taken. Wesnoth is a bad example, the outcome of your attack is highly random. Neuroshima Hex makes you draw 3 cards each turn and play 2 of them, but apart from that the game is deterministic. Furthermore, if you get bad cards at the start the luck tends to even out over the period of the game, because later you'll be drawing only good cads. Each player has his own deck and the usual win condition is when a deck runs out. I highly recommend the game. You can play it online, too: http://online.neuroshima.org/

Re: Why we still love board games

#107

Post by dminor »

bunderbunder wrote: post #100
gliese1337 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Agricola and Dominion fixed the problems Caylus had by adding significant randomization. Not only does that add strategic variety to the games [2], it also means that anyone can win any given game. While Agricola and Dominion do a pretty darn good job of it, it's often a matter of individual opinion whether adding randomization is a 'fix' or not. I hate playing a game where I feel like I could lose by pure chance n…

> I hate playing a game where I feel like I could lose by pure chance no matter what my level of skill is. I've discovered this is a crucial element in social games. Because the implication is that someone could also win by pure chance no matter what their skill level is. That makes the game a lot more approachable for people of all skill levels, and makes it easier for a room full of people to have fun together. Com…

Exactly - it's like the difference between chess and poker. Both are popular but poker is more widely played because differences in skill are less apparent (especially to an unskilled player)

People who don't like randomness mixed with skill just need to stop measuring themselves by the outcome of a single game.

Re: Why we still love board games

#108

Post by b0rsuk »

luu wrote: post #3

What's interesting to me is new board games aren't just variants on existing games; there's noticable innovation in board game "technology". If you ever play board games from the 80s and 90s, they often feel dated and clunky, even more so than video games from the same era. I recently went back and played some classic Avalon Hill games that were popular when I was a kid. I can't believe me and my friends spent so muc…

Computer games started as implementations of board games. But they have gone very far from each other. This comment nails it:

*

2 points by b0rsuk 4 days ago | link | parent | on: Mining a 1993 game design for innovative game mech...

There's an insightful comment over here: http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.com/2012/02/whether-they-l....

"""I think one of the very interesting things about modern single-player game development is that it creates exceptionally expensive content designed to appeal to everyone and be played exactly once for 8-10 hours. As anybody who plays European board games will tell you, making a game (read: the body of rules, the mechanics and dynamics) is cheap - all you need is creativity and a lot of playtesting. AAA videogames are entirely different, though - millions are spent on voice acting, scripting, graphics, etc. This is why I'm excited for moderate-budget games like Bastion that can publish interesting and challenging gameplay with a budget lean enough that it doesn't have to sell to absolutely everybody."""

http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.com/2012/02/whether-they-l...

Board games don't just innovate in the rules department. Everywhere outside the computer "game" world, games ARE the rules. Rules is how we distinguish one game from another. If Heroes of Might and Magic III was a board game, people would call it an expansion to Heroes II. It has nearly identical rules. It has 3 extra towns and some extra units and spells ? The same is true for Munchkin Cthulhu. But no one is silly enough to call it a sequel or a separate game.

As far as I'm concerned, 90% of the modern tacticool shooters are the same game, not similar games. They are played in the same way. Weapons and enemies are slightly different.

Board games frequently have mechanics unheard of in the world of computer games

Re: Why we still love board games

#109

Post by b0rsuk »

qznc wrote: post #42
qohen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-style_board_game As mentioned in the article, and here in the comments, the term "Eurogame" is often used to describe them: http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Eurogame (That term, in fact, redirects to the Wikipedia page above.) Also, FYI, in contrast to Eurogames, there's a style of game colloquially known as "Ameritrash", which you can read about here: http://boardgamegeek.com/wi…

"Simply put, Eurogames tend to focus on streamlined, well-balanced play, with a mimimal theme and more abstracted game mechanics, while Ameritrash focuses more on theme and dramatic gameplay." -- http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Ameritrash Sounds like a reasonable definition.

While not really a part of definition, eurogames tend to have fewer but well thought out pieces, cards or mechanics. Often a great deal of depth comes from fairly simple rules (like Dominion or Tigris&Euphrates). In contrast, ameritrash games tend to have lots and lots of cards and dice rolls which are often poorly balanced. Examples are Arkham Horror and Bang!

Another common trait is that eurogames tend to have less interaction and feel more like a race (Dominion, Seasons) than an elimination game. It has good sides - it's harder to gang up on the leader, making him lose for arbitrary reasons. In games with high interaction kingmaker syndrome can pop up - you no longer have a chance to win, but you can determine who gets knocked down to 2nd spot. On the other hand, sometimes it feels like you can play without looking at your opponents. Some games manage to strike a balance. Cyclades has a rule which makes it almost impossible to eliminate another player, AND it allows a badly damaged player to steal a victory. This is because the first player to own 2 Metropolis wins, but they exist on the board and can be conquered, not just built.

Re: Why we still love board games

#110

Post by b0rsuk »

RTigger wrote: post #57

Love this article. I think the end captures it perfectly - there's really nothing else that gets the same social interaction as board games. At work we use board games on a daily basis for team building, usually play a 1-hour-or-less game over every lunch. It's amazing how quickly you get to know someone and how those relationships build and blend into your work as well. You can see how someone teaches a new person h…

Don't get too excited. It strongly depends on the group you're playing with. I like silence and dislike disruptions. I hate people who won't shut up when playing a board game. Playing board games online can dramatically increase the fun factor of a game, especially if the game has a lot of score markers to keep track of (Seasons) or people don't say "end of turn". With many people, playing face to face is just a mess.
Post reply on HN