I played Warcraft II. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I played Warcraft III. It was... okay. I played World of Warcraft. I didn't get it.
Why do people play that game?!
Okay, okay, I can understand the psychology behind the addiction. The game is designed to lure players in and keep them there for as long as possible. The longer they keep playing, the more money Blizzard makes off them, thanks to subscription fees. Players are sent off on hundreds of little quests, collecting items and performing various menial tasks in the hope of gaining experience/items/notoriety. It's like those lab rats who learn that pushing the red lever will dispense food. Except in WoW, the red lever only SOMETIMES dispenses food. Sometimes, it does nothing. So the rats frantically push the lever, day after day, and every so often they get a randomized reward that makes their little hearts go pitter-pat.
I understand how the design of the game works to keep players coming back. What I don't understand is how anyone finds the game amusing at all. Where's the appeal?
I played the game for a while, years ago. I achieved level 12 before giving up. Understand, it takes a while to reach level twelve. We're talking maybe fifteen or twenty game hours. After all that time, I realized something. I had not yet had enjoyed myself while playing.
Now, it's possible that the game becomes more interesting at higher levels. But I doubt it. From what I've seen and heard, it continues to be formulaic and uninteresting. You talk with someone with a question mark, roam around killing stuff and collecting stuff, talk with the person again, get something from the little adventure. Wash, rinse, repeat. And people will do this FOR MONTHS. Some people have been doing it for years!
I don't get it. When does the game get fun? Someone has to explain this one to me.
Here is one of several problems I have with the game: It doesn't end! Granted, it's a game whose primary goal is to keep players paying the monthly subscription fee, so it's in the companies best interest to keep the storyline, such as it is, going for a long time. This is a great money-making scheme that has worked for television shows, comic books, and horror movie franchises for decades. But it rarely makes for good story-telling.
One of the reasons I prefer Japanese manga to American comic books is because manga writers are much more willing to finish the story. Trigun has a beginning, middle, and end. Once the story finishes, that's it. There is no more. Hope you enjoyed the ride, because that's all you get out of these characters and this universe. But my GOD, it's a fun ride. Batman, on the other hand, has been going for decades, with the occasional gritty reboot. Don't get me wrong; I love Batman. But I could never read the comics. I like my stories to eventually get wrapped up nicely.
World of Warcraft ostensibly is telling a story about a young adventurer who rises to power/fame/glory/whatever. This adventurer apparently makes his or her rise by collecting wolf pelts and fishing at every opportunity, including while raiding enemy cities. This adventurer's story never ends, though. He or she just keeps getting wealthier and more powerful, and probably has to wander around as a ghost every once in a while, looking for his or her body.
I play video games because I am interested in the story. The Zelda games, despite being quite formulaic, tell a fun and engaging story, as well as provide interesting and enjoyable gameplay. Dante's Inferno, a video game released last year, had many flaws, including shoddy cinematography which made combat and platforming unnecessarily difficult, some truly obnoxious puzzles, and an incoherent combat system that was fine when battling bosses and mini-bosses, but made fighting hoards of minions ridiculously easy, albeit somewhat time-consuming and repetitive. Despite all that, I enjoyed the game, because I was engrossed in the storyline.
Deus Ex? Cool storyline.
God of War? Cool storyline.
Dead Space? Very cool storyline.
Resident Evil 5? Terrible storyline, which is partially why it sucked so bad. (Although the fact that you were never alone--you always had a partner with you--made it difficult to feel fear and get a nice adrenaline rush during the supposedly scary situations. Solitude is what makes survival horror games frightening. Take away solitude, and your survival horror game isn't going to work. End of rant.)
World of Warcraft? Storyline is... just a disguise. A mask, to help players forget that they are just performing the same task over and over again. So all you WoW fans, you keep pushing that red lever. I hope you find the reward your looking for. As for me, I'm going to read a book.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Munchkin Gets a Grudging Thumbs Up
My wife was rather displeased with me when I brought home a copy of Munchkin Bites a couple months ago. Admittedly, she wasn't in the best of moods at the time and perhaps made a snap judgment, but she tends to stand by her initial assessments. Subsequently, I feared that there would be very little Munchkin fun going on in our household. Sigh.
Fortunately, we held a game night with some neighbors a few days later, and we decided to start off the evening with my shiny new Munchkin game as a light, fluffy game before moving on to the heavy stuff. That plan fell flat, though, when the game ended up taking three hours to finish--and in fact, only ended when I decided enough was enough and let Mike win. We were all rather new to the game, and with six players, we ended up burning through the Treasure deck. Eventually, the only things in the deck were one-shot items we kept using to prevent people from winning the game. They kept getting reshuffled and redrawn, until it was clear that winning the game was technically possible, but mathematically unlikely, accept in the event that someone chose to allow someone else to win. So that's what I did, because the game had been going for far too long.
Still, the game had mostly been fun. More importantly, it gave my wife a taste of why it could be fun, so she was willing to give it a chance this holiday season as we visited various relatives.
Munchkin, by Steve Jackson Games, is a series of card games and expansions that satirizes traditional role-playing games. The original Munchkin game (and the one with the most direct expansions) riffs off Dungeons and Dragons. Players start the game as an equipment-less, item-less human with no powers and no class (har har). Each turn, a player "kicks open the door" by drawing a Door card and revealing it. He or she may run afoul a curse or a trap, or encounter a monster to fight, or he or she may find a Race, Class, or Power card that will grant various useful abilities. By fighting monsters and using certain cards, players may draw from Treasure cards, hopefully finding useful items to play that will give them bonuses in combat.
The eventual goal is to reach Level 10 before anyone else. Levels can be gained by selling 1000 gold-worth of items, use Go Up A Level cards (which often have amusing titles such as Invoke Obscure Rules or Bribe GM With Snacks), or by defeating monsters in combat. The final tenth level can only be acquired through combat, which makes things tricky and amusing, because players have a wide variety of ways to affect another player's battles. There is subsequently a lot of player interaction, an element that occasionally fails to turn up in some of the games my wife and I play. (I'm looking at you, Dominion.)
There is also a trading aspect that further encourages player interaction. Upon encountering a particularly strong monster, one player can say to another, "If you help me defeat this monster, I'll give you two of the Treasure cards straight off the top of the deck." In other instances, someone may say, "You're a Wizard, right? I have this Pointy Hat of Power that gives a +3 Bonus in combat. It's only usable by Wizards. Can you offer me anything for it?"
There are plenty of different types of Munchkin games, all of which satirize the stereotypes of your favorite things: cowboys, kung fu movies, pirates, sci fi movies. They even have a Munchkin Impossible game for all you spy movie buffs!
The art and card names tend to be pretty funny, although occasionally a bit obscure. I think my wife's favorite moment happened when her brother used Magic Missile to attack The Darkness. (For those unfamiliar with the reference, please watch this amusing video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHdXG2gV01k)
We already owned Munchkin Bites, and were pleased to receive the original Munchkin game for Christmas. (Thanks, Alex and Sheena!) I have to admit, though, after playing the game so many times during the past few days, I'm a bit Munchkin-ed out. Still, at least I was able to convince my wife that the game is fun. I'll take that as a win.
Still, I'll be glad to give the game a little rest. At least until our next game night.
Fortunately, we held a game night with some neighbors a few days later, and we decided to start off the evening with my shiny new Munchkin game as a light, fluffy game before moving on to the heavy stuff. That plan fell flat, though, when the game ended up taking three hours to finish--and in fact, only ended when I decided enough was enough and let Mike win. We were all rather new to the game, and with six players, we ended up burning through the Treasure deck. Eventually, the only things in the deck were one-shot items we kept using to prevent people from winning the game. They kept getting reshuffled and redrawn, until it was clear that winning the game was technically possible, but mathematically unlikely, accept in the event that someone chose to allow someone else to win. So that's what I did, because the game had been going for far too long.
Still, the game had mostly been fun. More importantly, it gave my wife a taste of why it could be fun, so she was willing to give it a chance this holiday season as we visited various relatives.
Munchkin, by Steve Jackson Games, is a series of card games and expansions that satirizes traditional role-playing games. The original Munchkin game (and the one with the most direct expansions) riffs off Dungeons and Dragons. Players start the game as an equipment-less, item-less human with no powers and no class (har har). Each turn, a player "kicks open the door" by drawing a Door card and revealing it. He or she may run afoul a curse or a trap, or encounter a monster to fight, or he or she may find a Race, Class, or Power card that will grant various useful abilities. By fighting monsters and using certain cards, players may draw from Treasure cards, hopefully finding useful items to play that will give them bonuses in combat.
The eventual goal is to reach Level 10 before anyone else. Levels can be gained by selling 1000 gold-worth of items, use Go Up A Level cards (which often have amusing titles such as Invoke Obscure Rules or Bribe GM With Snacks), or by defeating monsters in combat. The final tenth level can only be acquired through combat, which makes things tricky and amusing, because players have a wide variety of ways to affect another player's battles. There is subsequently a lot of player interaction, an element that occasionally fails to turn up in some of the games my wife and I play. (I'm looking at you, Dominion.)
There is also a trading aspect that further encourages player interaction. Upon encountering a particularly strong monster, one player can say to another, "If you help me defeat this monster, I'll give you two of the Treasure cards straight off the top of the deck." In other instances, someone may say, "You're a Wizard, right? I have this Pointy Hat of Power that gives a +3 Bonus in combat. It's only usable by Wizards. Can you offer me anything for it?"
There are plenty of different types of Munchkin games, all of which satirize the stereotypes of your favorite things: cowboys, kung fu movies, pirates, sci fi movies. They even have a Munchkin Impossible game for all you spy movie buffs!
The art and card names tend to be pretty funny, although occasionally a bit obscure. I think my wife's favorite moment happened when her brother used Magic Missile to attack The Darkness. (For those unfamiliar with the reference, please watch this amusing video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHdXG2gV01k)
We already owned Munchkin Bites, and were pleased to receive the original Munchkin game for Christmas. (Thanks, Alex and Sheena!) I have to admit, though, after playing the game so many times during the past few days, I'm a bit Munchkin-ed out. Still, at least I was able to convince my wife that the game is fun. I'll take that as a win.
Still, I'll be glad to give the game a little rest. At least until our next game night.
Monday, December 6, 2010
What's In A Game?
What makes a good game? Why are some games fun and interesting, while others are just meh? Here are some criteria, in no particular order, that I use when I try a new board game or card game:
1. Easy to Learn
The game has to wow me right off the bat. Now, some games may have a neat gimmick (like Killer Bunnies) or take place in an interesting setting (like Warhammer 40,000 or Betrayal at House on the Hill), and for such "fluffy" games, I'm willing to be patient and learn a complex rule system.
For the most part, though, I enjoy a game that I can pick up and learn easily. It has the advantage of not losing my attention, which can be a bit short, span-wise. Also, I can turn around and teach the game to others.
2. Depth of Strategy
Easy to learn, difficult to master. Those are traits I really enjoy in a game. Card games like Magic: The Gathering or Dominion, for example, have a lot of subtle interactions between the cards. Similarly, the base mechanics of Carcassonne are easy to grasp, yet the game provides many strategic options and a plethora of decisions to make.
A writer and game designer whom I admire greatly once wrote an article about the difference between choices and decisions in a game. It took him an entire article to fully explain his thesis, but the gist of it was that some games provide you with many choices, or options, and you simply have to choose the best option. Other games, however, create moments wherein your options suddenly become limited, and you must make a decision about which route to take.
I believe that a good game backs players into corners and forces them to make strategic decisions. "Do I sacrifice my bishop to put myself on offense, or do I just move my king out of immediate danger, but stay in a defensive mode?" That's a game-changing decision, and it adds tension, which I enjoy. "What do I kill with this Lightning Bolt?" on the other hand, is a choice, which may create a decision for my opponent, but is usually just simple mathematics for me.
3. Replayability
Some games have a very heavy story element to them, which is cool. It can be harmful, though. It's hard to justify spending sixty dollars on a game that's only good for a couple plays. Murder mystery games, for example, suffer from this problem. You play through them once, and from then on you know whodunnit. Even if you can get a completely fresh group to play with you, you already know the story. The Horus Heresy game, I am told, has the same problem. While it may be fun to play out the final battle to defend the Emperor of Mankind against the corrupt heretic forces, after six or seven games, it gets stale.
Single-player video games can suffer from this same problem, although in their defense, they often take a few dozen hours to finish. Fifty dollars for a game that takes twenty five hours to beat equals two dollars per hour of entertainment, which makes it four or five times better than hitting up a movie theater, as an investment. Board games that lack replayability, however, can sometimes only boast five or six hours of fun before becoming uninteresting. At that rate, you'd be better off taking your sweetheart to a water park.
4. Rewards Skillful Play
I enjoy feeling rewarded for my efforts when I'm trying hard and playing well. There are some games--Killer Bunnies comes to mind--that, when boiled down, are almost entirely random. Roulette is the same way. You're just hoping to get lucky. I don't care for that. I like feeling that my efforts are paying off.
With games like Carcassonne or Magic: The Gathering, on the other hand, you can actually watch as you gain points on the score chart or see your opponent's life total diminish. It's fabulous.
5. Randomization
As much as I like being able to play skillfully and be rewarded, I also like a bit of randomness in my games. Chess is all well and good, but the really good players know when and how it's going to end long before less-experienced players such as myself. A bit of randomization, like rolling dice or shuffling cards, helps balance the game enough that newer or less-skilled players can still have a shot at winning. It adds a bit of danger and excitement to the game.
6. Non-Aggressive Strategies
This isn't as important to me as some of the other points I've mentioned, but I am not a mean person at heart. Sometimes, I have trouble being cutthroat enough to win games. I like games like Dominion, Carcassonne, or even (if you play your cards right) Magic: The Gathering, that provide strategies wherein you don't actually have to interact with the other players. That way, I can avoid upsetting anybody. That's probably why I love combo decks in Magic: The Gathering so much. I can just do my own thing, ignore my opponent, and try to just win before my opponent can kill me. Although that can upset some opponents, too, so I guess I can't always avoid making people mad. Sigh.
7. Fun
This is hard to quantify. Different people enjoy different things.
Here's my beef with games like FarmVille, Mafia Wars, or World of Warcraft. You do the exact same thing over, and over, and over again. Now, that would be fine if what you were doing was enjoyable, but it's just... not.
I sure do loves me some Dominion, though.
1. Easy to Learn
The game has to wow me right off the bat. Now, some games may have a neat gimmick (like Killer Bunnies) or take place in an interesting setting (like Warhammer 40,000 or Betrayal at House on the Hill), and for such "fluffy" games, I'm willing to be patient and learn a complex rule system.
For the most part, though, I enjoy a game that I can pick up and learn easily. It has the advantage of not losing my attention, which can be a bit short, span-wise. Also, I can turn around and teach the game to others.
2. Depth of Strategy
Easy to learn, difficult to master. Those are traits I really enjoy in a game. Card games like Magic: The Gathering or Dominion, for example, have a lot of subtle interactions between the cards. Similarly, the base mechanics of Carcassonne are easy to grasp, yet the game provides many strategic options and a plethora of decisions to make.
A writer and game designer whom I admire greatly once wrote an article about the difference between choices and decisions in a game. It took him an entire article to fully explain his thesis, but the gist of it was that some games provide you with many choices, or options, and you simply have to choose the best option. Other games, however, create moments wherein your options suddenly become limited, and you must make a decision about which route to take.
I believe that a good game backs players into corners and forces them to make strategic decisions. "Do I sacrifice my bishop to put myself on offense, or do I just move my king out of immediate danger, but stay in a defensive mode?" That's a game-changing decision, and it adds tension, which I enjoy. "What do I kill with this Lightning Bolt?" on the other hand, is a choice, which may create a decision for my opponent, but is usually just simple mathematics for me.
3. Replayability
Some games have a very heavy story element to them, which is cool. It can be harmful, though. It's hard to justify spending sixty dollars on a game that's only good for a couple plays. Murder mystery games, for example, suffer from this problem. You play through them once, and from then on you know whodunnit. Even if you can get a completely fresh group to play with you, you already know the story. The Horus Heresy game, I am told, has the same problem. While it may be fun to play out the final battle to defend the Emperor of Mankind against the corrupt heretic forces, after six or seven games, it gets stale.
Single-player video games can suffer from this same problem, although in their defense, they often take a few dozen hours to finish. Fifty dollars for a game that takes twenty five hours to beat equals two dollars per hour of entertainment, which makes it four or five times better than hitting up a movie theater, as an investment. Board games that lack replayability, however, can sometimes only boast five or six hours of fun before becoming uninteresting. At that rate, you'd be better off taking your sweetheart to a water park.
4. Rewards Skillful Play
I enjoy feeling rewarded for my efforts when I'm trying hard and playing well. There are some games--Killer Bunnies comes to mind--that, when boiled down, are almost entirely random. Roulette is the same way. You're just hoping to get lucky. I don't care for that. I like feeling that my efforts are paying off.
With games like Carcassonne or Magic: The Gathering, on the other hand, you can actually watch as you gain points on the score chart or see your opponent's life total diminish. It's fabulous.
5. Randomization
As much as I like being able to play skillfully and be rewarded, I also like a bit of randomness in my games. Chess is all well and good, but the really good players know when and how it's going to end long before less-experienced players such as myself. A bit of randomization, like rolling dice or shuffling cards, helps balance the game enough that newer or less-skilled players can still have a shot at winning. It adds a bit of danger and excitement to the game.
6. Non-Aggressive Strategies
This isn't as important to me as some of the other points I've mentioned, but I am not a mean person at heart. Sometimes, I have trouble being cutthroat enough to win games. I like games like Dominion, Carcassonne, or even (if you play your cards right) Magic: The Gathering, that provide strategies wherein you don't actually have to interact with the other players. That way, I can avoid upsetting anybody. That's probably why I love combo decks in Magic: The Gathering so much. I can just do my own thing, ignore my opponent, and try to just win before my opponent can kill me. Although that can upset some opponents, too, so I guess I can't always avoid making people mad. Sigh.
7. Fun
This is hard to quantify. Different people enjoy different things.
Here's my beef with games like FarmVille, Mafia Wars, or World of Warcraft. You do the exact same thing over, and over, and over again. Now, that would be fine if what you were doing was enjoyable, but it's just... not.
I sure do loves me some Dominion, though.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Why Monopoly Is A Lousy Game
Let's be honest. Monopoly is like a rite of passage for young Americans. Our bright little eyes light up at the sight of the fake money. We scramble to choose the best game token (the boot, obviously, and I don't care what you car-lovers say) and are eager to buy up properties and start raking in the dough.
The problem is, Monopoly is actually a truly terrible game. While I applaud Hasbro's efforts to teach children basic math, I shudder to think what children may glean about how economics works from this game. It's titled "Monopoly," for God's sake. There are laws in place to prevent monopolies, and for good reason. Yet the goal of this game is to own absolutely everything, and charge everyone an arm and a leg for the privilege of residing in your city-state. I find that appalling.
Further, there is the concept that simply purchasing some real estate will provide you with income, which (as anyone who has rented or bought real estate knows) is simply not the case.
On top of which, there's the whole money system that lets you buy entire hotel chains for a few thousand dollars. Huh? It takes thousands of dollars a day to keep a good hotel running!
Then there's the fact that everyone is apparently just roaming around Monopolyville with stacks of cash and no place to live. They just keep crashing at people's houses or paying for a hotel. Do they not have anything better to do with their lives than walking (or driving, if you're into the car) around, buying and selling deeds and rarely if ever staying at the properties they own?
And then there are the cheap franchise Monopoly games, like Star Wars Monopoly and The Office Monopoly. As if giving an awful game a fresh coat of paint will fix anything. Sure, the die-hard Simpsons or Frasier fans will impulsively pick copies of their respective franchise Monopoly games, but what do they really get out of them? Cheap pewter figures that barely resemble their namesakes, and a game board that may be pretty, but makes even less sense than the streets of the original Monopoly game.
Kudos to whoever thought to make A Nightmare Before Christmas Monopoly, though. I'd totally buy that.
The worst part about the game though: It never ends! I have met perhaps two people in my entire life that have actually played a Monopoly game all the way through to the end. SANE people just play for an hour or two and predict who is going to win. (Hint: It's the one with all the money and most of the properties.) Which is just another way of saying that normal people play until they get bored. A good game ought to hold players' interests all the way to the end of the game. Monopoly just doesn't do that.
If you already own a copy of Monopoly, I can't fault you for that. It's such a prevalent game that it's hard to avoid. It's like the Bible--people just expect you to own it. However, if you have yet to acquire a copy of your own, I say don't bother. Spend your money on a game worth playing. Or on cupcakes. Cupcakes are good, too.
The problem is, Monopoly is actually a truly terrible game. While I applaud Hasbro's efforts to teach children basic math, I shudder to think what children may glean about how economics works from this game. It's titled "Monopoly," for God's sake. There are laws in place to prevent monopolies, and for good reason. Yet the goal of this game is to own absolutely everything, and charge everyone an arm and a leg for the privilege of residing in your city-state. I find that appalling.
Further, there is the concept that simply purchasing some real estate will provide you with income, which (as anyone who has rented or bought real estate knows) is simply not the case.
On top of which, there's the whole money system that lets you buy entire hotel chains for a few thousand dollars. Huh? It takes thousands of dollars a day to keep a good hotel running!
Then there's the fact that everyone is apparently just roaming around Monopolyville with stacks of cash and no place to live. They just keep crashing at people's houses or paying for a hotel. Do they not have anything better to do with their lives than walking (or driving, if you're into the car) around, buying and selling deeds and rarely if ever staying at the properties they own?
And then there are the cheap franchise Monopoly games, like Star Wars Monopoly and The Office Monopoly. As if giving an awful game a fresh coat of paint will fix anything. Sure, the die-hard Simpsons or Frasier fans will impulsively pick copies of their respective franchise Monopoly games, but what do they really get out of them? Cheap pewter figures that barely resemble their namesakes, and a game board that may be pretty, but makes even less sense than the streets of the original Monopoly game.
Kudos to whoever thought to make A Nightmare Before Christmas Monopoly, though. I'd totally buy that.
The worst part about the game though: It never ends! I have met perhaps two people in my entire life that have actually played a Monopoly game all the way through to the end. SANE people just play for an hour or two and predict who is going to win. (Hint: It's the one with all the money and most of the properties.) Which is just another way of saying that normal people play until they get bored. A good game ought to hold players' interests all the way to the end of the game. Monopoly just doesn't do that.
If you already own a copy of Monopoly, I can't fault you for that. It's such a prevalent game that it's hard to avoid. It's like the Bible--people just expect you to own it. However, if you have yet to acquire a copy of your own, I say don't bother. Spend your money on a game worth playing. Or on cupcakes. Cupcakes are good, too.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Why You Should Be Playing Dominion
I ran into a friend while doing some laundry this morning. She and her husband are two people with whom my wife and I try to play games on a semi-regular basis. She asked about a game that my wife and I happen to adore, but I wasn't able to discuss the game in as much detail as I wanted. I wasn't able to "geek out," as they say.
So I thought I'd take this opportunity to discuss Dominion. It is a freaking awesome game. One of the things I love about it is it's replayability factor. Dominion is a deck-building card game. This means that each player begins the game with a small deck, and gradually adds to their respective decks as the game progresses. There are numerous Action cards, Treasure cards, Victory cards, and hybrid cards available that can be purchased and added to your deck to enhance the deck's power or to gain more Victory points. The great thing is, you can randomize which cards are available each game. Thus, every game is different, with unique combinations of cards available and unique challenges to overcome.
Gameplay
Here's how the game works: the game ends when either A) all the Province cards (worth 6 Victory points each) have been purchased, or B) any three Supply piles (piles of Action cards or Victory cards) run out. The winner of each game is then determined by adding up the number of Victory points each player has accumulated. Each player tries to purchase as many Victory cards as possible throughout the game. However, Victory cards usually do nothing (the Dominion: Intrigue expansion did several things to make Victory cards relevant prior to the end of the game, but for the most part, Victory cards are just dead in your hand), so it is prudent to wait until the game is coming to a close to buy Victory cards. Otherwise, you could find yourself stuck with a hand full of useless cards, thus wasting a turn or two looking for cards that do something.
Play proceeds clockwise, with each player taking a turn that consists of an Action phase, a Buy phase, and a Discard phase. During the Action phase, the active player may lay down and use one Action card, which could have a wide variety of effects, including allowing the player to use even more Action cards in that turn. Some of the more useful abilities of Action cards include drawing extra cards, acquiring new cards without needing to buy them, and adding virtual money to your money pool to spend that turn. There are also Action cards that attack other players--for example, forcing them to discard cards from their hand--but my wife and I tend to shun such malicious strategies.
Once all the actions have resolved, the player enters the Buy phase. You can use Treasure cards in your hand (plus any money generated by Action cards) to make a single purchase. Some Action cards (and, with the newest expansion, some Treasure cards) allow multiple purchases in a single turn. A typical turn, however, will consist of just one purchase, so you must select carefully which card amongst the various options to add to your deck.
During the Discard phase, all cards that were drawn or otherwise acquired are discarded into your discard pile, and a fresh hand of five cards is drawn.
Summary
The base game does a good job of introducing the various strategies of Dominion, and has given my wife and I hours of enjoyment. The great thing about Dominion, though, is that there are (currently) four expansions, each of which adds further depth and complexity, new strategies and new ways to enjoy the game.
Like most of the games I enjoy, Dominion is easy to learn and difficult to master. I would estimate that there are about one-hundred and thirty unique cards in Dominion, yet each game will only use between sixteen and nineteen of them. Since the available cards can change every game, you have to adapt to different strategies each time. Subsequently, the game has a high level of replayability. Plus, it's a lot of fun. Games can take as little as fifteen minutes from setup to point-tallying when played by two experts. (The average game, though, seems to take about thirty to forty minutes.) It is a perfectly balanced and fair game between two people, which is one of the reasons my wife and I play it so much; most of our other games need three or four people to play well. It can be played with two to four people without trouble.
More than four people will require at least one expansion, however. The base game does not come with enough Province cards for the game to play well with five or more people. You need to add two or three Province cards per person beyond the fourth to balance things. You may also need to stipulate that the second method of ending the game should be the depletion of four or even five stacks, rather than the usual three. So, a little bit of work is required to play with more than four people, but it's totally worth it.
Dominion is a lot of fun, and I highly recommend it. Both the Intrigue and Seaside expansions are enjoyable and add a lot to the game. I haven't had enough experience with the Alchemy or Prosperity expansions to give any sort of opinion on them, but I'm sure they're good, as well.
Check it out at boardgamegeek.com!
So I thought I'd take this opportunity to discuss Dominion. It is a freaking awesome game. One of the things I love about it is it's replayability factor. Dominion is a deck-building card game. This means that each player begins the game with a small deck, and gradually adds to their respective decks as the game progresses. There are numerous Action cards, Treasure cards, Victory cards, and hybrid cards available that can be purchased and added to your deck to enhance the deck's power or to gain more Victory points. The great thing is, you can randomize which cards are available each game. Thus, every game is different, with unique combinations of cards available and unique challenges to overcome.
Gameplay
Here's how the game works: the game ends when either A) all the Province cards (worth 6 Victory points each) have been purchased, or B) any three Supply piles (piles of Action cards or Victory cards) run out. The winner of each game is then determined by adding up the number of Victory points each player has accumulated. Each player tries to purchase as many Victory cards as possible throughout the game. However, Victory cards usually do nothing (the Dominion: Intrigue expansion did several things to make Victory cards relevant prior to the end of the game, but for the most part, Victory cards are just dead in your hand), so it is prudent to wait until the game is coming to a close to buy Victory cards. Otherwise, you could find yourself stuck with a hand full of useless cards, thus wasting a turn or two looking for cards that do something.
Play proceeds clockwise, with each player taking a turn that consists of an Action phase, a Buy phase, and a Discard phase. During the Action phase, the active player may lay down and use one Action card, which could have a wide variety of effects, including allowing the player to use even more Action cards in that turn. Some of the more useful abilities of Action cards include drawing extra cards, acquiring new cards without needing to buy them, and adding virtual money to your money pool to spend that turn. There are also Action cards that attack other players--for example, forcing them to discard cards from their hand--but my wife and I tend to shun such malicious strategies.
Once all the actions have resolved, the player enters the Buy phase. You can use Treasure cards in your hand (plus any money generated by Action cards) to make a single purchase. Some Action cards (and, with the newest expansion, some Treasure cards) allow multiple purchases in a single turn. A typical turn, however, will consist of just one purchase, so you must select carefully which card amongst the various options to add to your deck.
During the Discard phase, all cards that were drawn or otherwise acquired are discarded into your discard pile, and a fresh hand of five cards is drawn.
Summary
The base game does a good job of introducing the various strategies of Dominion, and has given my wife and I hours of enjoyment. The great thing about Dominion, though, is that there are (currently) four expansions, each of which adds further depth and complexity, new strategies and new ways to enjoy the game.
Like most of the games I enjoy, Dominion is easy to learn and difficult to master. I would estimate that there are about one-hundred and thirty unique cards in Dominion, yet each game will only use between sixteen and nineteen of them. Since the available cards can change every game, you have to adapt to different strategies each time. Subsequently, the game has a high level of replayability. Plus, it's a lot of fun. Games can take as little as fifteen minutes from setup to point-tallying when played by two experts. (The average game, though, seems to take about thirty to forty minutes.) It is a perfectly balanced and fair game between two people, which is one of the reasons my wife and I play it so much; most of our other games need three or four people to play well. It can be played with two to four people without trouble.
More than four people will require at least one expansion, however. The base game does not come with enough Province cards for the game to play well with five or more people. You need to add two or three Province cards per person beyond the fourth to balance things. You may also need to stipulate that the second method of ending the game should be the depletion of four or even five stacks, rather than the usual three. So, a little bit of work is required to play with more than four people, but it's totally worth it.
Dominion is a lot of fun, and I highly recommend it. Both the Intrigue and Seaside expansions are enjoyable and add a lot to the game. I haven't had enough experience with the Alchemy or Prosperity expansions to give any sort of opinion on them, but I'm sure they're good, as well.
Check it out at boardgamegeek.com!
Monday, November 22, 2010
I Could Use Some Help, Here
Hey, everybody. I've a bit of a conundrum. Maybe you can provide some assistance.
You see, my wife and I are developing a fun little card game together. It's going well--we're getting close to hammering out the major kinks. We'll probably start introducing our friends and family to it soon, partially as a way to advertise how freaking awesome we are, but mostly because the game needs beta-testing. We're hoping to actually get the thing published.
Here's the thing, though: Both of us happen to be lousy at naming things. I'm hoping that all of you faithful and brilliant readers can help us out.
I won't both explaining the exact game mechanics in this post--I'm not worried the ideas will be stolen, it's just that not everything is hammered out to our satisfaction. However, I'll give you an overview of the flavor behind it, and hopefully you can give us some good suggestions.
The game is a cooperative card game. Everyone works together to try and beat the clock. The idea is that each player is a goblin working in an underground factory. Each player draws a certain number of cards a turn, representing machine components coming down a conveyor belt. The goal is for every player to add components to machine and try to finish it in less than five minutes.
The reason for the time crunch is different each game. There are various Challenge Cards representing different bosses. For example, perhaps a big momma ogre is coming to eat all the goblins. The players have to build a machine that will either distract the big momma ogre or help the goblins escape. Or, in another challenge, a dragon is invading the goblin warrens, and the players must assemble a machine to either kill the dragon or appease it by helping it dig for treasure.
I'm stumped about what to call it. "Goblin Factory" doesn't exactly have a lot of zing. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
You see, my wife and I are developing a fun little card game together. It's going well--we're getting close to hammering out the major kinks. We'll probably start introducing our friends and family to it soon, partially as a way to advertise how freaking awesome we are, but mostly because the game needs beta-testing. We're hoping to actually get the thing published.
Here's the thing, though: Both of us happen to be lousy at naming things. I'm hoping that all of you faithful and brilliant readers can help us out.
I won't both explaining the exact game mechanics in this post--I'm not worried the ideas will be stolen, it's just that not everything is hammered out to our satisfaction. However, I'll give you an overview of the flavor behind it, and hopefully you can give us some good suggestions.
The game is a cooperative card game. Everyone works together to try and beat the clock. The idea is that each player is a goblin working in an underground factory. Each player draws a certain number of cards a turn, representing machine components coming down a conveyor belt. The goal is for every player to add components to machine and try to finish it in less than five minutes.
The reason for the time crunch is different each game. There are various Challenge Cards representing different bosses. For example, perhaps a big momma ogre is coming to eat all the goblins. The players have to build a machine that will either distract the big momma ogre or help the goblins escape. Or, in another challenge, a dragon is invading the goblin warrens, and the players must assemble a machine to either kill the dragon or appease it by helping it dig for treasure.
I'm stumped about what to call it. "Goblin Factory" doesn't exactly have a lot of zing. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
What Sony is Doing Wrong
I may write a follow-up to this post about what Sony is doing right. Maybe. We'll see.
First off, I don't understand what Sony was thinking with its marketing scheme when the Playstation 3 was released a few years ago. Check out this ad they ran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqkNPcUMffU
What the heck? That's supposed to make me want to buy a PS3? It creeped me out! Made me want to take a really hot shower to burn the disturbed off my skin.
Only the fact that they had a legitimately good product saved them. The PS3 was very powerful, and could double as a Blu-Ray disc player. Plus, legions of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear fans figured that Sony would continue to keep their precious game series exclusive. (Metal Gear Solid 4 did end up a PS3 exclusive, but Final Fantasy 13 was sold on both the PS3 and X-Box 360.) People bought it despite, not because of, the advertising campaign.
And how about that PS3, huh? Quite the machine. Although, just like the 360, early models of the PS3 suffered hardware problems that cost the company money. That's understandable; most machines are buggy when they're first released into the market. The problem is especially bad in the video game industry, however, where companies rush to release their new products without adequately testing them, just to race the competition.
The original PS3 was massive and heavy, which likely hurt sales, especially with the Nintendo Wii was about the size and weight of a Pop-Tart. Sony did eventually manage to release a new, slimmer version of the PS3, but this came with a major drawback: it wasn't backwards compatible. No more PS2 or Playstation games for you! This doesn't really make sense to me, and here's why: The PS2 Slim was tiny. I could hide it under a DVD case and no one would know. It weighed next to nothing. Yet somehow, dropping the Emotion Engine (the bit of the motherboard that ran PS2 games on the PS3) led to a 33% slimmer, 36% lighter PS3. I really don't get how that works. How big can that chip possibly be?
Okay, so, I can't play my favorite PS2 games on this new system. Fine. At least I can play the cool new games coming out, right?
Nope. Developers found the PS3 was difficult to program for, and many nearly abandoned ship and moved to the 360 and Wii. Despite the PS3's power and potential, no one made any notable games for it until about two years after its launch. Sony has since cleaned up its act somewhat, with a much more developer-friendly PS3 Slim. Still, the PS3 is lagging way behind both its competitors, trying to offer an extremely pricey system with fewer game options.
Here's another thing Sony is handling wrong: Final Fantasy VII. The seventh installment in the uberpopular series is one of the most-loved video games ever. People bought the freakin' Playstation just so they could play Final Fantasy VII. Heck, the Playstation came into existence because Square Enix wanted to created a game of epic proportions. Originally, they were going to program the game for the Nintendo 64, but Nintendo wanted to stick with cartridges instead of trying out this new-fangled CD thing. A cartridge couldn't possibly hold all the data the game would need, so Square asked if Sony wanted to have a shot at making a game console.
Point being, Final Fantasy VII is ridiculously popular. And yet it has never, not once, been rereleased since it's original launch in 1997. It's the most popular game ever to be released on pretty much any Playstation, ever. And Sony used sections of--with cool updated graphics--at the E3 convention in 2005 to show off how cool the PS3 was going to be. A "Final Fantasy VII testing group" was mentioned in the credits of the Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children movie and in the Final Fantasy VII spin-off video game Crisis Core. The team that worked on the original game has stated--repeatedly--that they would love to revisit it and update it for modern consoles. Yet still we get no updates, no rereleases. Sony is sitting on a gold mine, and it seems to have no interest in mining it.
Also, Final Fantasy 13 sucked.
Here's how a good business makes money: learn what consumers want, and sell it to them.
Here's how a lousy company fails to make money: release a product with a lot of potential, then do nothing with it.
Admittedly, some companies came come up with a product that nobody was looking to buy, and then make that product popular. See the iPod as an example. But that's not what Sony is trying to do. The PS3 was a highly-anticipated machine that gamers were salivating over. Then it hit the markets and failed to live up to expectations.
Here's what Sony needs to do to turn things around:
1) Rerelease Final Fantasy VII for the PS3. It will sell consoles. Guaranteed.
2) Release good, quality games that are enjoyable to play. Not Final Fantasy 13. And definitely not Metal Gear Solid 4. They are very pretty games to watch, but they are so dull to play. Good game play trumps good graphics every time. That's why the less-powerful but incredibly fun Nintendo Wii has seen so much success.
3) Advertise better. Tell people why they should spend hundreds of dollars on your product. Don't give them creepy babies in an empty room.
4) Respect the past. A lot of people loved their PS2 games. They PS3 is so expensive that a lot of players hawked their PS2 in order to get it. Retool the Slim if you must, but make it backwards compatible. If nothing else, at least make all those old game downloadable onto the PS3. We'll pay ten or fifteen bucks to be able to play them again.
This has been another post from L33t Games. Until next time, spend some quality time with your sweetheart.
First off, I don't understand what Sony was thinking with its marketing scheme when the Playstation 3 was released a few years ago. Check out this ad they ran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqkNPcUMffU
What the heck? That's supposed to make me want to buy a PS3? It creeped me out! Made me want to take a really hot shower to burn the disturbed off my skin.
Only the fact that they had a legitimately good product saved them. The PS3 was very powerful, and could double as a Blu-Ray disc player. Plus, legions of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear fans figured that Sony would continue to keep their precious game series exclusive. (Metal Gear Solid 4 did end up a PS3 exclusive, but Final Fantasy 13 was sold on both the PS3 and X-Box 360.) People bought it despite, not because of, the advertising campaign.
And how about that PS3, huh? Quite the machine. Although, just like the 360, early models of the PS3 suffered hardware problems that cost the company money. That's understandable; most machines are buggy when they're first released into the market. The problem is especially bad in the video game industry, however, where companies rush to release their new products without adequately testing them, just to race the competition.
The original PS3 was massive and heavy, which likely hurt sales, especially with the Nintendo Wii was about the size and weight of a Pop-Tart. Sony did eventually manage to release a new, slimmer version of the PS3, but this came with a major drawback: it wasn't backwards compatible. No more PS2 or Playstation games for you! This doesn't really make sense to me, and here's why: The PS2 Slim was tiny. I could hide it under a DVD case and no one would know. It weighed next to nothing. Yet somehow, dropping the Emotion Engine (the bit of the motherboard that ran PS2 games on the PS3) led to a 33% slimmer, 36% lighter PS3. I really don't get how that works. How big can that chip possibly be?
Okay, so, I can't play my favorite PS2 games on this new system. Fine. At least I can play the cool new games coming out, right?
Nope. Developers found the PS3 was difficult to program for, and many nearly abandoned ship and moved to the 360 and Wii. Despite the PS3's power and potential, no one made any notable games for it until about two years after its launch. Sony has since cleaned up its act somewhat, with a much more developer-friendly PS3 Slim. Still, the PS3 is lagging way behind both its competitors, trying to offer an extremely pricey system with fewer game options.
Here's another thing Sony is handling wrong: Final Fantasy VII. The seventh installment in the uberpopular series is one of the most-loved video games ever. People bought the freakin' Playstation just so they could play Final Fantasy VII. Heck, the Playstation came into existence because Square Enix wanted to created a game of epic proportions. Originally, they were going to program the game for the Nintendo 64, but Nintendo wanted to stick with cartridges instead of trying out this new-fangled CD thing. A cartridge couldn't possibly hold all the data the game would need, so Square asked if Sony wanted to have a shot at making a game console.
Point being, Final Fantasy VII is ridiculously popular. And yet it has never, not once, been rereleased since it's original launch in 1997. It's the most popular game ever to be released on pretty much any Playstation, ever. And Sony used sections of--with cool updated graphics--at the E3 convention in 2005 to show off how cool the PS3 was going to be. A "Final Fantasy VII testing group" was mentioned in the credits of the Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children movie and in the Final Fantasy VII spin-off video game Crisis Core. The team that worked on the original game has stated--repeatedly--that they would love to revisit it and update it for modern consoles. Yet still we get no updates, no rereleases. Sony is sitting on a gold mine, and it seems to have no interest in mining it.
Also, Final Fantasy 13 sucked.
Here's how a good business makes money: learn what consumers want, and sell it to them.
Here's how a lousy company fails to make money: release a product with a lot of potential, then do nothing with it.
Admittedly, some companies came come up with a product that nobody was looking to buy, and then make that product popular. See the iPod as an example. But that's not what Sony is trying to do. The PS3 was a highly-anticipated machine that gamers were salivating over. Then it hit the markets and failed to live up to expectations.
Here's what Sony needs to do to turn things around:
1) Rerelease Final Fantasy VII for the PS3. It will sell consoles. Guaranteed.
2) Release good, quality games that are enjoyable to play. Not Final Fantasy 13. And definitely not Metal Gear Solid 4. They are very pretty games to watch, but they are so dull to play. Good game play trumps good graphics every time. That's why the less-powerful but incredibly fun Nintendo Wii has seen so much success.
3) Advertise better. Tell people why they should spend hundreds of dollars on your product. Don't give them creepy babies in an empty room.
4) Respect the past. A lot of people loved their PS2 games. They PS3 is so expensive that a lot of players hawked their PS2 in order to get it. Retool the Slim if you must, but make it backwards compatible. If nothing else, at least make all those old game downloadable onto the PS3. We'll pay ten or fifteen bucks to be able to play them again.
This has been another post from L33t Games. Until next time, spend some quality time with your sweetheart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)