The results of the latest math trade are in, and I could not be more pleased. I ended up trading my German version of Diamant (great bits, but the game just kind of fell flat after the first couple of playings--I can think of a couple other fillers I'd play before this one) for HeroScape Raknar's Vision (with Major Q9 and Jotun...) and another Master Set. I also received San Marco in a direct trade for On the Underground (a game that really seems like it could suffer greatly from AP).
I would have liked to have moved a few more games, but, with my recent love affair with HeroScape, the expansion + master set was (don't laugh) my highest hope. And I was kind of stingy with some of my higher games (Vinci and UP), so I did not expect anything there.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Catching the iron horse from Timbuktu to Baghdad
As Cici and the girls were going to be gone all night at a friends house, I decided to try and find a few pals to game with. Two of the most enjoyable local gamers answered the call, Jeff and Jordan, and after some pizza and pleasantries, we sat down to some games.
Jeff claimed that Tombouctou was the last unplayed game in his collection, and really wanted to play it, so, after a brief rules explanation, we sat out on our caravans, attempting to outsmart the wily thieves that broke in at night and stole our wares. It is a very basic game, mainly composed of deduction, where players attempt to keep track of where the thieves are going to strike each night (not very smart thieves are they? Maybe we have inside men...). It is a simple game, and allows for a good amount of mental exercise in a neat package. Great bits, fully scalable from 3-5, and interesting decisions. The problem for me lies in downtime. As with many competitive deduction games, it can lend itself rather easily to AP--the rules even state that players are allowed to have pencil and paper to keep track of things. I just went with it, electing to attempt to remember where the thieves were supposed to be, and I ended up last by a small margin.
Side note: It is my personal philosophy that, the first time I play a game, I am mainly trying to learn it, inside and out, to see how the game plays and to try to understand it more in an attempt to discover if it is a game I would like. First time, I play to know, not play to win--most of the time. It is just too tedious to try and learn, understand, and compete all in the same game--well, at least it really can drag the game down.
Anyways, it was a good game, where Jordan (who did not take notes) ended up beating Jeff and I (who tied--Jeff took notes). It looks cool, plays pretty well, but, as a Queen game, really costs quite a bit for the game that you get (as opposed to Shogun, which costs just a bit more, and really delivers on the depth). It can be a longer-than-it-should-be game, as it does tend to really tempt the AP out of unwary people.
So, in a complete about-face in nearly every aspect, I brought in Wabash Cannonball in all its orphanic and homely glory. I have posted about it before--a step up from tic-tac-toe in its presentation, but superb gameplay. I ran through the rules, and away we went. This game went a bit quicker than Tombouctou, looked worse, and really ended up being a brain refresher for us. I just love the feigned co-op nature of the game, the pacing, the smooth flow of the game. Some games just get it--WC gets it, it makes sense. I led through 4 turns, really capitalizing on being the sole-holder of C & O stocks through the first 2 turns (it was a $10 payoff each time, but it was not divided at all). Jordan however, finally saw his high investment in the PA (red) railroad pay off in the last turn, passing me for the win. I just love this game, and cannot say enough about it.
So, the first and second games were fantastically different in nearly every way: bits, interface, and feel. For the 3rd game, we thought we ought to try to rid the world of all type of infectious menace known to common man--enter Pandemic. I had recently picked it up, played it once, found it a bit easy, so I asked Jeff to crank up the difficulty. As an ambassador for this game, Jeff has played it at least 20 times with all kinds of people. I was kind of worried that this might lead to Jordan and I taking back seats, and just going along for the ride--a concern in any co-op game. However, we all did work very well together, with Jordan finding several "better ways". Our team was composed of a scientist, a dispatcher, and an operations expert. After the 5th epidemic struck Baghdad, we really knew we were in trouble. No less than 12 cities around the world were holding at capacity for plagues, sicknesses, and assorted ailments. One false step, one slight miscalculation in our logistics, and we would be directly responsible for the untimely and historic dissolution of modern society. We were all tired, it was near midnight, we were all worried, we were all 3 on our feet, pacing, wringing our hands--it was going to be close. And when Jeff pulled up the final innocuous card, we rejoiced--I was a hiccup away from the research center in Baghdad, with all the research necessary to discover a cure for the Black Plague--we had won! I strolled triumphantly into the center, tossed the plans on the desk of the head technician, and accepted my place alongside Jeff and Jordan in the Worldwide Medical Hall of Fame--they actually moved Francis and Crick to let us have a front row display. President Bush, though it was long past bedtime, called and offered us congratulations, and we heard from both Obama and Clinton (who were attempting to pad their own causes). CNN, Fox, and finally Montel showed up (I immediately vetoed an appearance on Oprah). It was all a little overwhelming. The ticker tape here in Hanna City was falling on Main like the economy: fast, thin, and with no end in sight. We finally went our ways, and each found their own beds a little softer.
We had moved through the desert on camels, east across the country on the iron horse, and had flown worldwide all in one evening. It was a good game night.
Jeff claimed that Tombouctou was the last unplayed game in his collection, and really wanted to play it, so, after a brief rules explanation, we sat out on our caravans, attempting to outsmart the wily thieves that broke in at night and stole our wares. It is a very basic game, mainly composed of deduction, where players attempt to keep track of where the thieves are going to strike each night (not very smart thieves are they? Maybe we have inside men...). It is a simple game, and allows for a good amount of mental exercise in a neat package. Great bits, fully scalable from 3-5, and interesting decisions. The problem for me lies in downtime. As with many competitive deduction games, it can lend itself rather easily to AP--the rules even state that players are allowed to have pencil and paper to keep track of things. I just went with it, electing to attempt to remember where the thieves were supposed to be, and I ended up last by a small margin.
Side note: It is my personal philosophy that, the first time I play a game, I am mainly trying to learn it, inside and out, to see how the game plays and to try to understand it more in an attempt to discover if it is a game I would like. First time, I play to know, not play to win--most of the time. It is just too tedious to try and learn, understand, and compete all in the same game--well, at least it really can drag the game down.
Anyways, it was a good game, where Jordan (who did not take notes) ended up beating Jeff and I (who tied--Jeff took notes). It looks cool, plays pretty well, but, as a Queen game, really costs quite a bit for the game that you get (as opposed to Shogun, which costs just a bit more, and really delivers on the depth). It can be a longer-than-it-should-be game, as it does tend to really tempt the AP out of unwary people.
So, in a complete about-face in nearly every aspect, I brought in Wabash Cannonball in all its orphanic and homely glory. I have posted about it before--a step up from tic-tac-toe in its presentation, but superb gameplay. I ran through the rules, and away we went. This game went a bit quicker than Tombouctou, looked worse, and really ended up being a brain refresher for us. I just love the feigned co-op nature of the game, the pacing, the smooth flow of the game. Some games just get it--WC gets it, it makes sense. I led through 4 turns, really capitalizing on being the sole-holder of C & O stocks through the first 2 turns (it was a $10 payoff each time, but it was not divided at all). Jordan however, finally saw his high investment in the PA (red) railroad pay off in the last turn, passing me for the win. I just love this game, and cannot say enough about it.
So, the first and second games were fantastically different in nearly every way: bits, interface, and feel. For the 3rd game, we thought we ought to try to rid the world of all type of infectious menace known to common man--enter Pandemic. I had recently picked it up, played it once, found it a bit easy, so I asked Jeff to crank up the difficulty. As an ambassador for this game, Jeff has played it at least 20 times with all kinds of people. I was kind of worried that this might lead to Jordan and I taking back seats, and just going along for the ride--a concern in any co-op game. However, we all did work very well together, with Jordan finding several "better ways". Our team was composed of a scientist, a dispatcher, and an operations expert. After the 5th epidemic struck Baghdad, we really knew we were in trouble. No less than 12 cities around the world were holding at capacity for plagues, sicknesses, and assorted ailments. One false step, one slight miscalculation in our logistics, and we would be directly responsible for the untimely and historic dissolution of modern society. We were all tired, it was near midnight, we were all worried, we were all 3 on our feet, pacing, wringing our hands--it was going to be close. And when Jeff pulled up the final innocuous card, we rejoiced--I was a hiccup away from the research center in Baghdad, with all the research necessary to discover a cure for the Black Plague--we had won! I strolled triumphantly into the center, tossed the plans on the desk of the head technician, and accepted my place alongside Jeff and Jordan in the Worldwide Medical Hall of Fame--they actually moved Francis and Crick to let us have a front row display. President Bush, though it was long past bedtime, called and offered us congratulations, and we heard from both Obama and Clinton (who were attempting to pad their own causes). CNN, Fox, and finally Montel showed up (I immediately vetoed an appearance on Oprah). It was all a little overwhelming. The ticker tape here in Hanna City was falling on Main like the economy: fast, thin, and with no end in sight. We finally went our ways, and each found their own beds a little softer.
We had moved through the desert on camels, east across the country on the iron horse, and had flown worldwide all in one evening. It was a good game night.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
First Best Of
As 2007 marked my initial foray into the world of board games, this will be first best of gaming list. It is a response to a friend of mine's list, that really intrigued me (go check his list out). So, without further ado, here is the best of my great year.....
Biggest Surprise: I was shocked at how much I enjoyed Reef Encounter. In fact, I am involved in my 3rd straight online game of RE, all in rapid succession. Weird theme, it is an abstract, but I really love it.
Top 2-player game: Gail and I started out playing games together quite a bit. We started the year with only 2 kids, so our time was a bit more wide open. My favorite 2-player game is Twilight Struggle, but since that is so tough to find time to play, I will include Mr. Jack.
Old Saddle Game: I got so worn out on Lost Cities, playing it 15 times in one Sunday afternoon (at my opponents insistence). It is a good game, but I really don't care to play it for some time.
The 2004 World Series Game: I was so excited to play Cowboys: The Way of the Gun. We tried everything: Ennio Morricone soundtrack, wearing the girls cowboy hats, tweaks, etc. The game is so pedestrian, so basic (nearly as basic as any game you played as a kid) that it just did not work for me at all. Huge letdown.
The Dark Horse Game: The game that lurks in the shadows, that I often forget about, is Acquire. Funny, in that it is a classic, but I just tend to forget about it. Then I play it again, and am just floored by how much fun it is.
Best Kids Game: If you are a parent that wants to play games with your kid, and actually have fun doing it, then there are only two games that you need to really search for and find: Gulo Gulo and Tier auf Tier (Animal Upon Animal). I stuck Tier auf Tier into an order from Canada for the first Pitchcar Extension and Mr Jack Expansion--only place I could find both games), and we have played Gulo Gulo many times. Either game is great with kids or adults, does not take much time to set up or play, and provides great entertainment.
Best Filler (Quick) Game: For Sale is so clean it is hard to dislike. It only takes 15 minutes to play, is easy to teach, and promotes that "Just one more game" sensation. Honorable mention: Can't Stop and Diamant.
Best Marathon Game: Without a doubt, the game that rewards distance is Twilight Struggle. I am yet to play a full game, and it just amazes me with its demands on the players. Well-designed, thought provoking, and super theme.
If I Lived at a Convention: ...and time were no matter, and great opponents were everywhere, I would play Age of Steam, Age of Empires III, and Wabash Cannonball until my brain fell out. These are the games that I see nearly unlimited potential in. I should throw Goa in there as well.
The Ugly Duckling: Wabash Cannonball. Close second: Goa. Yuck.
Worst Games: Munchkin drove me nuts. I began liking Blokus, now I despise it. Throw Fairy Tale in the mix as well.
Next Time You See Me: I will likely talk about Agricola. It is in the bank, when will it get here?
45 Minutes Left, What Should We Play?: The game that you don't want to buy, but should be playing is Yspahan. 45 minutes of quietly tough choices, multiple ways to win, and a bit of chance. It is tough not to mention Ra, Zooloretto, or Race for the Galaxy here.
Games for People Who Hate Games: Wits and Wagers, PitchCar, and Ticket to Ride are all games that I really enjoy, and that I feel play very well with just about anybody.
Best Games of 2007:
Gail:
1. Power Grid
2. Cuba
3. Lord of the Rings: Confrontation Deluxe
4. Dungeon Twister
5. Samurai
Jaybird:
( in a haphazard, if not completely inaccurate order)
1. Wabash Cannonball
2. PitchCar
3. Age of Steam
4. Twilight Struggle
5. Gulo Gulo
6. Goa
7. Power Grid
8. Cuba
9. Race for the Galaxy
10. Pillars of the Earth
(sorry, I couldn't knock it down to a shorter list)
It has been a great year, life is great. I am so thankful to have found this hobby.
Biggest Surprise: I was shocked at how much I enjoyed Reef Encounter. In fact, I am involved in my 3rd straight online game of RE, all in rapid succession. Weird theme, it is an abstract, but I really love it.
Top 2-player game: Gail and I started out playing games together quite a bit. We started the year with only 2 kids, so our time was a bit more wide open. My favorite 2-player game is Twilight Struggle, but since that is so tough to find time to play, I will include Mr. Jack.
Old Saddle Game: I got so worn out on Lost Cities, playing it 15 times in one Sunday afternoon (at my opponents insistence). It is a good game, but I really don't care to play it for some time.
The 2004 World Series Game: I was so excited to play Cowboys: The Way of the Gun. We tried everything: Ennio Morricone soundtrack, wearing the girls cowboy hats, tweaks, etc. The game is so pedestrian, so basic (nearly as basic as any game you played as a kid) that it just did not work for me at all. Huge letdown.
The Dark Horse Game: The game that lurks in the shadows, that I often forget about, is Acquire. Funny, in that it is a classic, but I just tend to forget about it. Then I play it again, and am just floored by how much fun it is.
Best Kids Game: If you are a parent that wants to play games with your kid, and actually have fun doing it, then there are only two games that you need to really search for and find: Gulo Gulo and Tier auf Tier (Animal Upon Animal). I stuck Tier auf Tier into an order from Canada for the first Pitchcar Extension and Mr Jack Expansion--only place I could find both games), and we have played Gulo Gulo many times. Either game is great with kids or adults, does not take much time to set up or play, and provides great entertainment.
Best Filler (Quick) Game: For Sale is so clean it is hard to dislike. It only takes 15 minutes to play, is easy to teach, and promotes that "Just one more game" sensation. Honorable mention: Can't Stop and Diamant.
Best Marathon Game: Without a doubt, the game that rewards distance is Twilight Struggle. I am yet to play a full game, and it just amazes me with its demands on the players. Well-designed, thought provoking, and super theme.
If I Lived at a Convention: ...and time were no matter, and great opponents were everywhere, I would play Age of Steam, Age of Empires III, and Wabash Cannonball until my brain fell out. These are the games that I see nearly unlimited potential in. I should throw Goa in there as well.
The Ugly Duckling: Wabash Cannonball. Close second: Goa. Yuck.
Worst Games: Munchkin drove me nuts. I began liking Blokus, now I despise it. Throw Fairy Tale in the mix as well.
Next Time You See Me: I will likely talk about Agricola. It is in the bank, when will it get here?
45 Minutes Left, What Should We Play?: The game that you don't want to buy, but should be playing is Yspahan. 45 minutes of quietly tough choices, multiple ways to win, and a bit of chance. It is tough not to mention Ra, Zooloretto, or Race for the Galaxy here.
Games for People Who Hate Games: Wits and Wagers, PitchCar, and Ticket to Ride are all games that I really enjoy, and that I feel play very well with just about anybody.
Best Games of 2007:
Gail:
1. Power Grid
2. Cuba
3. Lord of the Rings: Confrontation Deluxe
4. Dungeon Twister
5. Samurai
Jaybird:
( in a haphazard, if not completely inaccurate order)
1. Wabash Cannonball
2. PitchCar
3. Age of Steam
4. Twilight Struggle
5. Gulo Gulo
6. Goa
7. Power Grid
8. Cuba
9. Race for the Galaxy
10. Pillars of the Earth
(sorry, I couldn't knock it down to a shorter list)
It has been a great year, life is great. I am so thankful to have found this hobby.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The Wabash Cannonball
I thought that I would start off with a report of a recent homely little game that I tracked down called Wabash Cannonball. For warnings, it is the most unappealing game that I own--the map and two side "boards" are nothing more than laminated pieces of paper with some minor little afterthoughts of color. The money is glorified construction paper, as are some of the shares. But the colored cubes are pure-euro. It does not have a conventional box, just a snap-shut plastic job. So, if you are swayed heavily by the appearance of a game, look elsewhere. It is just awful looking.
But if a game earns its keep solely by how it plays, then there is no greater example than Wabash Cannonball. I have never played a game that packs so much cutthroat play, cooperation, every man for himself gameplay into 45-60 minutes. I have only been able to play one 2 player game and one 6 player game--while 2 is not enough, and 6 is way too many, the game, when played with 3-4 people will (I believe) smash people in the mouth and leave them asking for more. Allow me to elaborate on how it all works.
At the start of the game, shares are auctioned off for 5 historic railroads. They all start on the east side of a hex map of the Eastern/Central United States. Each time a share is auctioned, the money is paid directly into that railroads treasury. Then, play begins with whomever holds a certain share of the starting railroad. On your turn, you are allowed to either expand the railroad (using only the money from the railroads treasury--thus, no money=no expansion), industrialize a city that the railroad runs through (basically, make your railroad worth more), or begin an auction for any other available railroad. These decisions (as they are called in the game) are tracked on a--surprise!--decision track. Once all of two of the types of decisions have been used a set number of times, then payouts occur based on the railroads income. The only way to make more money is to either buy stocks (which essentially make the railroads both stronger and worth less at the same time) or expand the railroad in anticipation of future payouts--which always help others who either have or will buy shares in the future.
Sound complex? Boring? Railroad-y? Yes, but not really. In actual play, it is simple--the complexity only comes in when you are trying to decide between 3 options. It is the polar opposite of boring--you cannot help but wonder at how the game plays in spite of how it looks. While playing with 6, I discovered that the only way to get closer to winning (whoever ends up with the most money at the end wins) is to simultaneously help your opponents and force them to cough up more money to win an auction of a share of a railroad that they already own. That, and keep your eye on what your own railroad is doing.
60 minutes (at most, though with 6 players it might last longer) of fast, agonizing, and highly competitive gameplay. Give it a chance, and you should find yourself hunting it down soon after.
But if a game earns its keep solely by how it plays, then there is no greater example than Wabash Cannonball. I have never played a game that packs so much cutthroat play, cooperation, every man for himself gameplay into 45-60 minutes. I have only been able to play one 2 player game and one 6 player game--while 2 is not enough, and 6 is way too many, the game, when played with 3-4 people will (I believe) smash people in the mouth and leave them asking for more. Allow me to elaborate on how it all works.
At the start of the game, shares are auctioned off for 5 historic railroads. They all start on the east side of a hex map of the Eastern/Central United States. Each time a share is auctioned, the money is paid directly into that railroads treasury. Then, play begins with whomever holds a certain share of the starting railroad. On your turn, you are allowed to either expand the railroad (using only the money from the railroads treasury--thus, no money=no expansion), industrialize a city that the railroad runs through (basically, make your railroad worth more), or begin an auction for any other available railroad. These decisions (as they are called in the game) are tracked on a--surprise!--decision track. Once all of two of the types of decisions have been used a set number of times, then payouts occur based on the railroads income. The only way to make more money is to either buy stocks (which essentially make the railroads both stronger and worth less at the same time) or expand the railroad in anticipation of future payouts--which always help others who either have or will buy shares in the future.
Sound complex? Boring? Railroad-y? Yes, but not really. In actual play, it is simple--the complexity only comes in when you are trying to decide between 3 options. It is the polar opposite of boring--you cannot help but wonder at how the game plays in spite of how it looks. While playing with 6, I discovered that the only way to get closer to winning (whoever ends up with the most money at the end wins) is to simultaneously help your opponents and force them to cough up more money to win an auction of a share of a railroad that they already own. That, and keep your eye on what your own railroad is doing.
60 minutes (at most, though with 6 players it might last longer) of fast, agonizing, and highly competitive gameplay. Give it a chance, and you should find yourself hunting it down soon after.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Atop the cardboard soapbox....further worthless thoughts on the ridiculous debate over the origins and/or composition of boardgames
I did spend a bit of time last night surfing Fortress: Ameritrash. What an incredibly interesting site. Those guys are passionate about the hobby, huh. While I think that they go a little overboard on some of their Euro bashing (after all, they are just games....), it is very refreshing to see some well-formed opinions on some popular games (boy, do they hate Caylus or what?).
I have heard about this hobbywide (in)famous blog, and I was drawn to it's somewhat coarse sense of intelligence. I really enjoyed reading most of the stuff that was there--only reservation was, like I said, they tend to sway a bit to the overboard side sometimes in their attacks on various games. That said, I think that they are simply trying to counteract the masses that fall in line with their adulation of popular Euros. One thing that I realized the other night, while playing Goa (an extremely dry and themeless game that is incredible in its interaction, mechanics, and thought-provocation)--Euros are quite often brain-excercises, while so-called AT games are meant to be immersive entertainment, dropping you in the middle of this alternate reality, making you feel like you are part of that alternate reality, and forcing you to roll with whatever punches are tossed your way.
What do you think of this assessment: Euros are for those who want to feel like they control:
1. The outcome (their "destiny" so to speak)
2. The circumstances (strategy trumps luck/chance)
3. The flow of life (you go where you plan to go, and do what you scheme to do--the biggest variable being other players)
While AT games are for those who:
1. Don't mind fielding bad-hops (an overcoming of awful dice rolls)
2. Want to feel like they are experiencing whatever it is they are attempting (much like many RPGs)--want to hunt Dracula? Good luck finding him first!
3. Feel that games ought to represent the way things are in life--you cannot control everything.
Hmm. The blog just got me thinking, and assessing what attracts me to games so much. I was playing Age of Empires III the other night, a game which is roundly smashed on F:AT, and thinking about how much I love that game in spite of its unabashed Euro-infatuatedness. It is a blast for me to clash my wits against others--regardless of how much far removed that actual clashing may be from what I am actually doing. On the other hand, it is hard (for me at least) to beat a loud game of Arkham Horror, where, heck I may get devoured because things aren't rolling my way, but, by gee, I am going to roll with the punches.
To wit: In a strategy-laden Euro-fest, I will likely flounder. But most of the time, that is because I am distracted by how much fun I am having playing the game, how much fun I am having matching wits (however lacking I may be) with the other players. So I love it. Goa is so dry, it is a visual disaster (what an amazingly awful game to behold...), and its mechanics are so far divorced from its theme. But I think it is one heck of an excercise. Perhaps more of an exercise than a game.
Also, planning, strategy, and player control of outcomes hardly exist in Arkham Horror, and, possibly to a greater degree, Last Night on Earth. Try as you might, in the end, it all comes down to one simple thing: how the dice shake out. That is an incredible amount of outcome to place on a handful of little numbered cubes. But these very facts are so entertaining: that every single game will play out at least a bit differently every single time, that you are always teetering on the brink of destruction, failure, victory and conquest--always, always, based on time, chance, and space.
So please, just give me a good game. But at the end of the day, it does not matter how the game "works", so long as the leaden shroud of the mundane is torn asunder, and, for 15 minutes or 4 hours, I am thrust headlong into the throes of that which is removed from what will ever happen to me, be it knighthood, vampire hunting, locomotives, goods trading, electioneering, global politicking, or any other sort of conquest.
So long as it is a conquest, and I am some part of it.
I have heard about this hobbywide (in)famous blog, and I was drawn to it's somewhat coarse sense of intelligence. I really enjoyed reading most of the stuff that was there--only reservation was, like I said, they tend to sway a bit to the overboard side sometimes in their attacks on various games. That said, I think that they are simply trying to counteract the masses that fall in line with their adulation of popular Euros. One thing that I realized the other night, while playing Goa (an extremely dry and themeless game that is incredible in its interaction, mechanics, and thought-provocation)--Euros are quite often brain-excercises, while so-called AT games are meant to be immersive entertainment, dropping you in the middle of this alternate reality, making you feel like you are part of that alternate reality, and forcing you to roll with whatever punches are tossed your way.
What do you think of this assessment: Euros are for those who want to feel like they control:
1. The outcome (their "destiny" so to speak)
2. The circumstances (strategy trumps luck/chance)
3. The flow of life (you go where you plan to go, and do what you scheme to do--the biggest variable being other players)
While AT games are for those who:
1. Don't mind fielding bad-hops (an overcoming of awful dice rolls)
2. Want to feel like they are experiencing whatever it is they are attempting (much like many RPGs)--want to hunt Dracula? Good luck finding him first!
3. Feel that games ought to represent the way things are in life--you cannot control everything.
Hmm. The blog just got me thinking, and assessing what attracts me to games so much. I was playing Age of Empires III the other night, a game which is roundly smashed on F:AT, and thinking about how much I love that game in spite of its unabashed Euro-infatuatedness. It is a blast for me to clash my wits against others--regardless of how much far removed that actual clashing may be from what I am actually doing. On the other hand, it is hard (for me at least) to beat a loud game of Arkham Horror, where, heck I may get devoured because things aren't rolling my way, but, by gee, I am going to roll with the punches.
To wit: In a strategy-laden Euro-fest, I will likely flounder. But most of the time, that is because I am distracted by how much fun I am having playing the game, how much fun I am having matching wits (however lacking I may be) with the other players. So I love it. Goa is so dry, it is a visual disaster (what an amazingly awful game to behold...), and its mechanics are so far divorced from its theme. But I think it is one heck of an excercise. Perhaps more of an exercise than a game.
Also, planning, strategy, and player control of outcomes hardly exist in Arkham Horror, and, possibly to a greater degree, Last Night on Earth. Try as you might, in the end, it all comes down to one simple thing: how the dice shake out. That is an incredible amount of outcome to place on a handful of little numbered cubes. But these very facts are so entertaining: that every single game will play out at least a bit differently every single time, that you are always teetering on the brink of destruction, failure, victory and conquest--always, always, based on time, chance, and space.
So please, just give me a good game. But at the end of the day, it does not matter how the game "works", so long as the leaden shroud of the mundane is torn asunder, and, for 15 minutes or 4 hours, I am thrust headlong into the throes of that which is removed from what will ever happen to me, be it knighthood, vampire hunting, locomotives, goods trading, electioneering, global politicking, or any other sort of conquest.
So long as it is a conquest, and I am some part of it.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
zzz
we played a game of GOA last night. it was pretty fun, but i'm still so baffled by the very poor graphic design of the board/pieces. why don't the spice colors match the spice markers? very silly.
and right now jay's sitting at the table with jordan & todd. i think they forget that i'm in the house. and now i'm going to bed. so nice to have competition back in the air. aaah.
and right now jay's sitting at the table with jordan & todd. i think they forget that i'm in the house. and now i'm going to bed. so nice to have competition back in the air. aaah.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
boring
our game blog is boring. we've been busy with stuff. more later, when we finally play some games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)