What makes a good game?
A good game should have decent pacing. I like it to be my turn lots. Everyone else can F$%& right off.
A good game should have intriguing decisions to make: both tactical and strategic.
So the big contradiction: the harder the decisions the worse the pacing (in general). So it’s kind of a balancing act. I don’t mind waiting for my opponents to think things through if there are things worth thinking about.
And a corollary: If I feel a game fails at pacing and decisions, I am unlikely to like it enough to become decent at it. So it kind of reinforces that.
I really don’t know how to continue except to give some examples of games that we have played within the past year or so.
Pacing: Good to exceptional. It is your turn lots.
Darren’s ability: Poor. I suck at this game and am never ever never really competitive.
Pacing: Adequate to Good. Definitely has some slow spots, especially when your opponents have two really good cards to pass.
Decisions: Good. It’s pretty standard fare, but the pieces fit together smoothly and there are multiple paths to victory.
Darren’s Ability: Adequate to Good. I don’t keep track of win percentages, but wild ass guessing, I would say I win 1 out of every 4 or 5 times. Wins aren’t a big deal to me; the big factor is that I am competitive 9 out of 10 times.
Pacing: Poor to adequate. Decisions take a long ass time. Kicking this up to adequate because the decisions made are really really hard.
Decisions: Superior. Out of the NF extended clan, I am the only one still playing online. I feel that might be part of my personality. I didn’t play a dozen of games simultaneously like everyone else, I paced myself. So as it stands, I am still learning things from this game, but I only participate in 1 or 2 games at once.
Darren’s Ability: Good to superior. That’s entirely because I am still in practice compared to everyone else. I win online 30% of the time, but that factor in my early games. Currently I probably win closer to 40% of the time and finish no worse than 2nd 60-70% of the time.
Nice one.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree a little it with the "Samurai - Decisions: Lame to adequate". And just in the matter of grade.
I thinks Samurai is a little bit like chess... the mechanics are simple but the strategy can get very complicated. The special pieces allow you to elaborate a longer term strategy and it often becomes quite convoluted... just like Samurais did.
Glad to see Mike might have someone to play Samurai with then ;)
Deletejuan i played two player samurai like 3 times in a row after you all left one night. :) i agree you are not good at samurai. you have to be patient, it is like dot's in that if you draw the third line around a box, don't be surprised when someone seals it up. so if you do that you better damn well know how it's likely to play out. otherwise, play somewhere else, the board is large.
Deleteto me its very much a ham and eggs style problem. I could have some ham and eggs if only I had some ham. and eggs.
DeleteI'd be better at this game if I showed more patience, but then I find the game play so lame I just want it over with.
@Juan re: chess. Not a big fan of chess either. At my current skill level chess is a series of arms races and games of chicken until someone flinches; immediately followed by set piece choreographed resolutions. I take it on faith that the game gets deeper, but the time investment to get to that level simply is not worth it to me.
pacing is super important to me too. i don't mind waiting occasionally. I have to admit i get annoyed when waiting for the same person over and over again. I don't mind as much as i used to, and i try to conciously mind less. but more importantly I try to make sure i make my play, without spending so much time that I'm "that guy" :)
ReplyDeleteyou linked dots, which is different from the game you pictured. dots is something like go. dots and boxes is the game i think we're talking about:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_and_boxes
Pacing and decision making are contextual. I like changing the pace based on who I am playing with and why. With my extended family, quick pace and quick decision making is important so everyone is involved. We often solve problems with game design by playing on teams, or playing games where it is fun to watch someone else's turn. Or, where decision making is leisurely, so you can chat with others during a round while someone is taking their turn.
ReplyDeleteMost NF games are not about social time but are about winning with your brain. In that setting I agree with Darren about what is important, but game design is not the problem: it's who you play with. Finding an opponent who is a 'match' for you means they like what you like in the game and can appreciate your approach. Because of this I won't play Eurorails with certain people because 1) it takes waaay too long and 2) it requires my focus during other's turns so it's hard to do anything BUT play Eurorails for the 7 hours it takes to play.
Settlers and Starcraft (the computer game) are good examples for me of balanced games. Long enough but not too long, with lots going on to keep you busy.
we solved eurorails for our group by using that alternate rule of starting with 70 bucks (instead of 50). MUCH quicker game, but still intense. darren still wins most of the time though :)
ReplyDeletedo i have to write the good game from Mikes POV too?
ReplyDeletedo i have to write the good game from Mikes POV too?
ReplyDelete