What makes a game good?
Patrick Carroll
to put it another way, what are the elements of a classic game (or potential
classic)?
To a large extent it comes down to the purely subjective--as in "I don't know
much about art, but I know what I like." That's an interesting old saying,
really, when you stop and think about it. On the surface, it's a confession
that emotional response, or personal taste, is often the deciding factor. But
behind that, there's the notion that one *can* "know much about art"--or games,
or whatever--and that maybe such knowledge ought to be valued.
With that in mind, what are some of the criteria we might use? What tools, or
gauges, might be useful in measuring a game, or comparing one to another in
some meaningful and more or less objective way? Here are three points that
occur to me:
1. Replay value. If a game can be played once (or a few times) and
"solved" or "spent," so that it's not nearly as interesting next time around,
I'd say that detracts greatly from the game's worth. Conversely, the longer a
game remains fun and interesting, with repeated play, the better the game is.
(As an aside, I think familiarity ties in with replay value. If a game can
become pleasingly familiar--e.g., the Monopoly game you got for Xmas long
ago--and yet remain interesting and replayable, a positive cycle develops:
familiarity encourages replay, and replay breeds familiarity. But when
"familiarity breeds contempt" instead, then the game drops in value.)
2. Practicality. A game that takes a year to learn, ten years to play,
and a city-sized area to play on would be disadvantageous. At the other
extreme, a coin flip doesn't make for a very interesting game either: it's too
simple and small, and it's over too fast. To be good, a game ought to be
reasonably easy to set up and play, and it ought to last just long enough, with
just the right amount of player interaction. Rules complexity is another
factor that ought to strike a nice balance. Versatility is another practical
consideration: I'd give a special thumbs-up to a game that's suitable for
various numbers of players and a wide range of social situations. In contrast,
I'd frown on a game that can only be played by a certain number of players or
is only suitable for a certain type of player. Similarly, if a game is
suitable for indoor or outdoor play, that's a plus. If it lends itself to
being a quick coffee-break game, yet also makes for a fun marathon gaming
session, that's another mark in its favor.
3. Aesthetic appeal. I think there's something to be said for a game that
appeals to our imagination and sense of beauty. This is probably the most
subjective criterion of all, since some people appreciate campy "game art" like
Operation more than the "classic art" of chess. Still, for a game to be good,
it ought to strike one's aesthetic fancy in some way. A pencil-and-paper game
just can't compare to a gorgeous board or card game.
Are there any other important factors in determining the value of a game?
Maybe, but that's enough for now. Now let's look at a few games and apply the
criteria above.
Chess--maybe *the* classic board game in the Western world. I'd say its replay
value is high, judging by how small a percentage of players manage to master
the game, despite the wealth of literature and software available on it. It
gets a moderate rating in practicality, because it's strictly a two-player
game, but it's easy to set up and can be played quickly or slowly. As to
aesthetic appeal, I'd have to give chess the highest rating (I think it may be
the most beautiful game in the world)--but again, that's mostly a matter of
taste.
Bridge--*the* card game, according to many. It's replay value is obviously
high. Practicality is moderate (the complexity and need for four players
detract somewhat). Aesthetic appeal is moderate at best, in my opinion (cards
are attractive, but commonplace and made of material that wears out with
repeated use).
Monopoly. Replay value must be high, since fans of the game never seem to tire
of it. Practicality is only fair: it takes a little while to set up and often
a long while to play; but it's suitable for varying numbers of players, and
players of all age-groups and interest levels can join in. Aesthetic appeal is
so-so; some like it a lot, others don't.
Yahtzee. Replay value is high, owing to the liberal use of randomizers (the
dice). Practicality is pretty high (the need to write down & sum up scores
being the only drawback). Aesthetic appeal is fair, in my view (dice are
attractive, actually, but they're unfortunately commonplace).
Dominoes. Replay value is high (unless you learn only the Block game, which
can get boring after a while). Practicality is excellent (can be played by any
number of players, of any age-group, and by serious players as well as casual
ones). Aesthetic appeal is pretty fair (like dice, dominoes are attractive but
rather stark & commonplace).
Settlers of Catan. Replay value is high. Practicality is fair (a bit of a
pain to set up the hex-tile board, but otherwise a nicely paced game of
reasonable length--albeit best for exactly four players). Aesthetic appeal is
pretty good.
ASL. Replay value is high (due mainly to unlimited scenario-design potential).
Practicality is low (the hefty rulebook and eight-phase turns will put most
players off unless they happen to be WWII buffs). Aesthetic appeal is fairly
good (very pretty, but just 2D cardboard after all).
AD&D. Replay value is high (again, mainly due to unlimited scenario-design
potential). Practicality is fairly low (need for a GM, predesigned scenario,
mapping and record-keeping--and a lot of detailed rules to keep track of;
adaptable to varying numbers of players, but aimed at fantasy-fiction fans).
Aesthetic appeal is difficult to rate: it's nonexistent, since there are no
standard game components; yet for some players, the main attraction is all the
cool stuff that players conjure up in their imagination during the game.
Tic-tac-toe. Replay value is low (which is why I included this game in the
list). Practicality is moderate (quick & easy, but suitable for just two
players who want to do something rather mindless). Aesthetic value, I'd say,
is pretty low (though there's a big gap between chalk on the sidewalk and
Hollywood Squares, so it's hard to say).
Some random observations on the above-listed games: It would seem replay value
is essential, except for children's games like tic-tac-toe; obviously, once a
game loses players' interest, it ceases to be a good game--that's almost
tautological. Practicality may be a necessity (and may be tied in with replay
value), but gamers with peculiar interests (e.g., wargamers and RPGers) are
willing to push the envelope of practicality in order to get the intense
experience they're after. Aesthetic appeal is likely a big factor, but a tough
one to pin down; very subjective.
What are the elements of a classic game? Mainly replay value and practicality,
but also aesthetic appeal. Except where a large number of gamers share a
common "theme" interest (e.g., war or sci-fi/fantasy), impractical features
(such as big, complicated rulebooks) are a damper. And unless the game serves
some peculiar function (e.g., tic-tac-toe as a simple children's game or the
background structure for a TV game show), lack of replay value will lead to
extinction. Aesthetic appeal seems to be something of a wild card.
Afterthought: It occurs to me that there's a correlation between these
features and the three basic gamer-types I've identified before: The
Competitor is mainly concerned with replay value (the game has to be
interesting enough to put some thought & attention into); the Socializer is
mainly concerned with practicality (interactivity and suitability for play by
real people); and the Dreamer is mainly concerned with aesthetic appeal (how
the game stimulates the imagination). So, either I'm on to something here, or
I'm just stuck in a mental rut. :^)
Comments, flames, or other responses?
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Edge
Patrick Carroll wrote in message
<19991227161546...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
>Here's the age-old question again: how do you gauge the value of a game?
Or,
>to put it another way, what are the elements of a classic game (or
potential
>classic)?
>
>
or
>gauges, might be useful in measuring a game, or comparing one to another in
>some meaningful and more or less objective way? Here are three points that
>occur to me:
>
>1. Replay value. If a game can be played once (or a few times) and
>"solved" or "spent," so that it's not nearly as interesting next time
around,
>I'd say that detracts greatly from the game's worth
If a game is sufficiently inexpensive, the replay value can be lower.
>
>2. Practicality. A game that takes a year to learn, ten years to play,
>and a city-sized area to play on would be disadvantageous. At the other
>extreme, a coin flip doesn't make for a very interesting game either: it's
too
>simple and small, and it's over too fast. To be good, a game ought to be
>reasonably easy to set up and play, and it ought to last just long enough,
with
>just the right amount of player interaction. Rules complexity is another
>factor that ought to strike a nice balance. Versatility is another
practical
>consideration: I'd give a special thumbs-up to a game that's suitable for
>various numbers of players and a wide range of social situations. In
contrast,
>I'd frown on a game that can only be played by a certain number of players
or
>is only suitable for a certain type of player. Similarly, if a game is
>suitable for indoor or outdoor play, that's a plus. If it lends itself to
>being a quick coffee-break game, yet also makes for a fun marathon gaming
>session, that's another mark in its favor.
This is a lot of points disguised under a single adjective.
2a. Straightforward rules (a few pages)
2b. Good playing length (an hour, perhaps 2)
2c. "just the right amount of player interaction"
2d. Multi-player
2e. Appealing to "non-gamers"
2f. Wind resistent (not gonna happen!)
Now, I'm not typical. I can read SPI rule books. So 2a is not important to
me, although it certainly is important to commercial success.
2b is increasingly important to what seems to be a significant segment of
the readers of this newsgroup, myself included.
2c is the most important point, period. I feel that "the right amount of
player interaction" is the definition of whether or not the game is good.
If you can beat up the leader(s) too much, the game is just the meta-game
with some tactics. I'm no longer interested in such contests.
Tied in closely with this is the observation made many times previously in
this forum that each turn should have some importance in the contest. Good
play on turn one should confer an advantage which cannot be swept aside by
well orchestrated collusion.
2d. I hate two player games. Too much thought. This is a hobby, not a
vocation.
2e. A nicety, IMHO.
2f. Sure would be nice. There are many lovely days in this part of the
world (SF Bay Area) when we'd like to be gaming outside, but my town is
*very* windy. Blows all the smog to Salinas and Fresno, so that's not
entirely a bad thing, but very few games can withstand it.
>
>3. Aesthetic appeal.
Sure, but a lower priority for me.
I would add:
4. Theme. The "tinsel" of a game is important to me.
5. Humor. If we laugh when we play it, we'll play it again. This is the
main attraction of Wiz War, for instance, which is a perennial favorite.
Scores high in the other important categories, too, like degree of player
interaction. An interesting approach to solving the problem, if you think
about it. Every "rule" is violated by some card or another, and no one is
ever safe or out of range, if someone else has the proper card. And yet,
with interaction seemingly maximized, the "get the leader" problem is not
untoward.
The Maverick
>
> Here's the age-old question again: how do you gauge the value of a game?
If you like it.
the Mav
--
> This web page will self destruct in 5 seconds:
http://www.brainiac.com/micro/sfgg/index.html
> This web page will self destruct in 2 seconds:
http://www.brainiac.com/micro/index.html
> This web page has already self destructed!
http://maverick.brainiac.com/mwwg/index.html
Michel Boucher
<19991227161546...@ng-fg1.aol.com>:
>Chess--maybe *the* classic board game in the Western world. [...]
>As to aesthetic appeal, I'd have to give
>chess the highest rating (I think it may be the most beautiful game in
>the world)--but again, that's mostly a matter of taste.
The only think I can think of when I think of chess is that the terrain
rules suck. Probably the first game to use specialized units, however :-)
>Monopoly. Replay value must be high, since fans of the game never seem
>to tire of it. Practicality is only fair: it takes a little while to
>set up and often a long while to play; but it's suitable for varying
>numbers of players, and players of all age-groups and interest levels
>can join in. Aesthetic appeal is so-so; some like it a lot, others
>don't.
And it is evil, but let's not ruin anybody's Christmas ;-)
Historicity is an important point for me, if it is a historical game.
Other than that, I only ask that it not encourage my stepchildren to turn
into screaming harpies...
---------------
Congratulations, Canada, on preserving your national igloo.
Mike Huckabee
Governor of Arkansas
To send private mail, get the zed out.
ideefixe
A. It must be fun. It must be challenging.
Patrick Carroll
I disagree. A great game is one you can play over and over again, and never
grow tired of. A two-dollar game that gives you & your friends a big thrill
one evening and then just gathers dust until the next garage sale is *not* a
great game (by my definition).
>2a. Straightforward rules (a few pages)
>2b. Good playing length (an hour, perhaps 2)
>2c. "just the right amount of player interaction"
>2d. Multi-player
>2e. Appealing to "non-gamers"
>2f. Wind resistent (not gonna happen!)
>
>Now, I'm not typical. I can read SPI rule books. So 2a is not important to
>me, although it certainly is important to commercial success.
I'd say it's also important to "classic" status. If the rules don't become
second nature at some point, the game will never have more than a cult
following.
>2b is increasingly important to what seems to be a significant segment of
>the readers of this newsgroup, myself included.
Yes. And I'd say that's by no means a new phenomenon. Look at the classic
games that have been around for centuries. How long do they take to play? The
longest I know of is Go, and even that can be completed within a couple hours
(if players aren't thinking too deeply).
>2c is the most important point, period. I feel that "the right amount of
>player interaction" is the definition of whether or not the game is good.
OK. But as I said above, *my* definition of a great game is one that
intelligent, game-loving people will play over and over again, and never grow
tired of. A game with great player interaction is mediocre, IMHO, if players
end up saying, "That was a blast--but let's not do it again" (because it's too
long, too complicated, now solved, or in competition with a dozen other such
games--or because there's some other drawback).
>Tied in closely with this is the observation made many times previously in
>this forum that each turn should have some importance in the contest. Good
>play on turn one should confer an advantage which cannot be swept aside by
>well orchestrated collusion.
Doesn't that depend on the game? In some games (e.g., Diplomacy), "well
orchestrated collusion" is what it's all about. That's why I personally shy
away from multiplayer games. Either I end up being hurt that others conspired
against me, or I end up feeling ashamed for conspiring against someone else.
>2d. I hate two player games. Too much thought. This is a hobby, not a
>vocation.
Ah! Now there's the rub. How to take games more seriously than non-gamers do,
yet not so seriously as chessmasters do. Somewhere in the middle lies the joy
of gaming. But there's always room for "well orchestrated collusion" even in
multiplayer games. And even solitaire games can require "too much thought."
I've wrestled with this problem for years, and the best I've been able to come
up with is that it's not the game, it's the attitude. (Now if I could just
adjust my attitude.)
>2e. A nicety, IMHO.
I don't see that "appeal to non-gamers" would be a concern at all. You can
demonstrate the greatest game in the world to a non-gamer, and he's just gonna
squirm and run off to do something else. Who (besides game publishers) cares
how non-gamers react to a particular game?
>2f. Sure would be nice. There are many lovely days in this part of the
>world (SF Bay Area) when we'd like to be gaming outside, but my town is
>*very* windy. Blows all the smog to Salinas and Fresno, so that's not
>entirely a bad thing, but very few games can withstand it.
Dominoes! Dominoes are ideal in many ways--but may not be your cup of tea, if
you insist on some "theme" in your games. (However, Mexican Train is a
dominoes game currently growing in popularity, which does have a *very* thin
veneer of "theme.")
>>3. Aesthetic appeal.
>
>Sure, but a lower priority for me.
>
>
>I would add:
>4. Theme. The "tinsel" of a game is important to me.
>
>5. Humor. If we laugh when we play it, we'll play it again. . . .
Well, it would be hard to find humor in a game without theme, wouldn't it?
Guess those who prefer non-themed games rely on table conversation for the
humor factor. Doesn't always work, though (picture the grim-faced fellow at a
Friday-night poker game, griping, "Are you gonna gab all night, or play
cards?"). There is something to be said for a game with a humorous theme--or
any theme that can be turned humorous with a bit of imagination.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Graham Wills
>
> >If a game is sufficiently inexpensive, the replay value can be lower.
>
> I disagree. A great game is one you can play over and over again, and never
> grow tired of. A two-dollar game that gives you & your friends a big thrill
> one evening and then just gathers dust until the next garage sale is *not* a
> great game (by my definition).
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I must say that I
don't
share it. There are great movies I will never see again - they have
little
re-see value and great movies I will watch over and over. The same is
true
in games.
For example, Tic-Tac-Toe (Naughts and Crosses) is a great game. I play
it with my three year old son, and he loves it. It is simple to learn,
easy to play, requires almost no set up and is quick. I'll never play
it by choice, but that does not stop it being a great game.
Chess is mathematically similar to Tic-Tac-Toe. If someone discovers the
perfect strategy for chess, will it then cease to be a great game? No.
I'll also never play chess by choice.
The best game I ever played might well have been a murder-mystery a
friend wrote about a murder in Toon-town. It has zero replay value,
but provided 40 people a night to remember. Was it great? Indisputably.
-Graham
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
Graham Wills
>
> Q. What makes a game good?
A game is good if it entertains people. Since
people are entertained by different things,
the criteria for a good game will be different for
everybody.
David Bush
Carroll) wrote:
>3. Aesthetic appeal. I think there's something to be said for a game that
>appeals to our imagination and sense of beauty. This is probably the most
>subjective criterion of all, since some people appreciate campy "game art" like
>Operation more than the "classic art" of chess. Still, for a game to be good,
>it ought to strike one's aesthetic fancy in some way. A pencil-and-paper game
>just can't compare to a gorgeous board or card game.
Aesthetics can be appreciated on more than one level, although you
might call it "playability." What draws many players to chess is the
beauty to be found in many positions. Maybe it's just a learned
response; if you get positive feedback by winning chess games, you
might regard your favorite wins as "beautiful" games. But I believe
the beauty in such games is real and permanent.
>Chess--maybe *the* classic board game in the Western world. I'd say its replay
>value is high, judging by how small a percentage of players manage to master
>the game, despite the wealth of literature and software available on it. It
>gets a moderate rating in practicality, because it's strictly a two-player
>game, but it's easy to set up and can be played quickly or slowly. As to
>aesthetic appeal, I'd have to give chess the highest rating (I think it may be
>the most beautiful game in the world)--but again, that's mostly a matter of
>taste.
It sounds like you are using a deeper sense of aesthetics here.
Chess has many flaws, such as the preponderance of drawn games, and
the high degree of opening memorization required to play
competitively. But others might point to these "flaws" as
"attributes." My feeling is that an abstract game should not be
judged by the company it keeps (or doesn't keep.) At least, not
as far as its intrinsic beauty is concerned.
There! I got through the whole post without once mentioning Twixt.
David
David Bernazzani
wrote:
[SNIP - rest of David's post I agree with]
>Chess has many flaws,
Really?
>such as the preponderance of drawn games, and
>the high degree of opening memorization required to play
>competitively. But others might point to these "flaws" as
>"attributes."
Yes, these are attributes, not flaws. Most good strategy games have
some memorization effect. Go has opening positions and familiar
formations which are beneficial to study. Bridge has volumes on
bidding techniques given certain card combinations which are learned
by those who play competitively.
I have not studied opening play in chess and have enjoyed playing the
game immensely for 20+ years. I know enough to centralize, castle
early and move knights and Bishops before Rooks and Queens but have
not studied anything in opening theory beyond the King's Pawn opening
or the Ruy Lopez.
And the fact that a game can be drawn is marvelous for Chess. Chess
is a reasonably equal playing field and with equal play the game
should draw. Those struggling from behind often look to a draw (or
stalemate) for the half-point.
- Dave Bernazzani
db...@gis.net
Dave Boyd
news:3868e47f...@news.rockbridge.net...
> There! I got through the whole post without once mentioning Twixt.
Woops.
--
Dave Boyd | Parents travel far | From a place that lacks
Systems | They view a new dimension | Bilateral symmetry
Analyst | Getting me only | This lousy F-shirt
Michelle & Boyd Bottorff
> >Chess has many flaws,
>
> Really?
>
> >such as the preponderance of drawn games, and
> >the high degree of opening memorization required to play
> >competitively. But others might point to these "flaws" as
> >"attributes."
>
> Yes, these are attributes, not flaws. Most good strategy games have
> some memorization effect. Go has opening positions and familiar
> formations which are beneficial to study. Bridge has volumes on
> bidding techniques given certain card combinations which are learned
> by those who play competitively.
One man's attributes are another man's flaws. The memorization factor
is a reason I don't like chess or go. I would rather see if I can make
the best of a multitude of variables than do endless variations on a
theme.
Michelle & Boyd Bottorff
> >2a. Straightforward rules (a few pages)
> >Now, I'm not typical. I can read SPI rule books. So 2a is not important to
> >me, although it certainly is important to commercial success.
> I'd say it's also important to "classic" status. If the rules don't become
> second nature at some point, the game will never have more than a cult
> following.
Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering have gotten more than a cult
following. Admittedly, they're not board games, but the same principles
apply.
Rick Jones
>
> Are there any other important factors in determining the value of a game?
> Maybe, but that's enough for now. Now let's look at a few games and apply the
> criteria above.
Price. Overly costly games, like CCGs with the continuous need to
purchase expansions in order to keep the game interesting and
challenging, can be disappointing. I'm one of the many players that
became burned out on Magic and its ilk because of the excessive expense
involved. This may also apply to RPGs and a few board games (Supremacy,
Talisman) which push players to continually add more "stuff" to keep a
game fresh. IMO, a game has a weak design if it can't survive on the
basic set alone.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
"What if your balls were in your ears?"
-Linda Lovelace, "Deep Throat"
Edge
>>2c is the most important point, period. I feel that "the right amount of
>>player interaction" is the definition of whether or not the game is good.
>
>OK. But as I said above, *my* definition of a great game is one that
grow
>tired of. A game with great player interaction is mediocre, IMHO, if
players
>end up saying, "That was a blast--but let's not do it again" (because it's
too
>long, too complicated, now solved, or in competition with a dozen other
such
>games--or because there's some other drawback).
>
>>Tied in closely with this is the observation made many times previously in
>>this forum that each turn should have some importance in the contest.
Good
>>play on turn one should confer an advantage which cannot be swept aside by
>>well orchestrated collusion.
>
>Doesn't that depend on the game? In some games (e.g., Diplomacy), "well
Well, sure, of course it does. Games where the meta-game (inter player
interactions) dominates cannot be "great" games, by my definition.
Diplomacy, Advanced Civilization, etc. There are many, many examples of
such games, many of which I played, with great enjoyment, many times. But
now, if the game degenerates to "best whiner wins", I am no longer
interested.
>orchestrated collusion" is what it's all about. That's why I personally
shy
>away from multiplayer games. Either I end up being hurt that others
conspired
>against me, or I end up feeling ashamed for conspiring against someone
else.
A "great" multi-player game allows for just the right amount of player
interaction, so that "well orchestrated collusion" IS NOT POSSIBLE. This
avoids the inevitable hurt feelings, and makes for a much more interesting
game. I understand why you'd shy away from multi-player games, as most of
them suffer from the "kill the leader, best whiner wins" problem. But some
do not, and I consider this factor to be critical to "greatness" for a
multi-player game.
Take Streetcar, as an example. Pretty light game. Lots of luck in who goes
first, and the route you draw, and the tiles you draw (in order of
importance, but all matter enough to cost you the game.) The Mayfair
version has adequate components, at best. Yet, I consider it close to
greatness.
Replays well. Very simple rules. Vicious, intricate inter-player
interaction, which rarely includes collusion. You could play the game
silently, and lose very little (except good natured ragging, taunting,
bluffs, psychs, and probes.) That is to say, it has all the benefits of
multiple players, and none of the drawbacks, except a kingmaker problem in
the end-game.
>
>>2d. I hate two player games. Too much thought. This is a hobby, not a
>>vocation.
>
>Ah! Now there's the rub. How to take games more seriously than non-gamers
do,
>yet not so seriously as chessmasters do. Somewhere in the middle lies the
joy
>of gaming. But there's always room for "well orchestrated collusion" even
in
Not always. Games can be designed to avoid this. It requires effort and
intent on the part of the designer to achieve it, I imagine. But it is well
worth it when done right.
>multiplayer games. And even solitaire games can require "too much
thought."
Heh. No kidding. The Peloponesian Wars has been kicking my ass.
>I've wrestled with this problem for years, and the best I've been able to
come
>up with is that it's not the game, it's the attitude. (Now if I could just
>adjust my attitude.)
I respectfullly submit my observations above as an alternative to
"attitude". I play with a bunch of damned maximizers who'll collude as soon
as drop a hat. Perhaps that's why we enjoy Condotierre so much. The fact
that certain collusions are inevitable if the other players permit them
causes those situations not to arise. In particular, if you leave only two
players with cards in a round, they'll divide Italy, or die trying. So, we
don't let that ever happen. The game fixes itself nicely. We almost
thought it was broken, but it turned out, we were just playing it wrong.
Or, really, we were still learning the game. Another game that borders on
"greatness", as a result.
>
>>2e. A nicety, IMHO.
>>2f. Sure would be nice. There are many lovely days in this part of the
>>world (SF Bay Area) when we'd like to be gaming outside, but my town is
>>*very* windy. Blows all the smog to Salinas and Fresno, so that's not
>>entirely a bad thing, but very few games can withstand it.
>
>Dominoes! Dominoes are ideal in many ways--but may not be your cup of tea,
if
No, I enjoy dominoes. I don't insist on a theme, if the game is good
enough. Can't get my kids to play it yet, though. Not sure why, unless
it's that they think I'm trying to slip a math quiz in on them disguised as
a game.
>you insist on some "theme" in your games. (However, Mexican Train is a
>dominoes game currently growing in popularity, which does have a *very*
thin
>veneer of "theme.")
>
>>
>>5. Humor. If we laugh when we play it, we'll play it again. . . .
>
>Well, it would be hard to find humor in a game without theme, wouldn't it?
Yes, I guess so. That's a big part of the appeal of Shanghai Trader and
Junta. Plus, they meet the "correct amount of player interaction" test
pretty well.
We don't rollplay Junta. The political satire is funny enough. We tried to
play a game in honor of every violent change in government in every banana
republic in the world for awhile, but the breakup of the Soviet Union
overwhelmed us. "Okay, have we played one for Tajikstan?" Oi
Jeff Fisher
>
> Here's the age-old question again: how do you gauge the value of a game? Or,
> to put it another way, what are the elements of a classic game (or potential
> classic)?
I would add "having achievable secondary objectives". A strategy game
that can be fun to play in a losing cause is one that will attract more
adherents than a game that is frustrating for all but the winner. In a
great game, playing is like cake, and winning is frosting on the cake.
I like the crayon rail games because I enjoy creating an elegant rail
net even if I don't win the game. I enjoyed the original 3rd Reich
because I could rewrite a dramatic bit of history. I enjoy Republic of
Rome (1st epoch) because I can work to preserve the republic even if I
don't see how to win.
In some games, a losing position can be thwarted, blocked and stunted at
every turn. Strategies may never come to fruition; sometimes a player
may not even be allowed to act. I find such frustration very unpleasant.
In some such games, the "also ran" players are patsies entertaining the
leader(s) and waiting for the game to end (i.e. some games are "over"
for some players long before they may politely leave to do something
else).
-- Jeff Fisher <>< Vancouver WA
Patrick Carroll
>
>A game is good if it entertains people. Since
>people are entertained by different things,
>the criteria for a good game will be different for
>everybody.
Then what makes a movie good? Is "Ishtar" just as good a movie as
"Casablanca"?
Or to put it another way, if "a game is good if it entertains people," then my
original question was: What makes a game entertaining to a vast number of
people--so entertaining that those people will gladly play the game repeatedly,
teach it to their friends & children, and pass it down through the generations?
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Robert Chang
p55ca...@aol.compliant (Patrick Carroll) wrote:
> >> Q. What makes a game good?
> >
> >A game is good if it entertains people. Since
> >people are entertained by different things,
> >the criteria for a good game will be different for
> >everybody.
>
> Then what makes a movie good? Is "Ishtar" just as good a movie as
> "Casablanca"?
It depends on what you watch movies for. Ishtar isn't nearly as bad as its
reputation. I kinda liked "The Postman," too. Despite popular opinion
and awards shows, I thought that "Forrest Gump" wasn't very good at all.
"Good" is a highly subjective term.
> Or to put it another way, if "a game is good if it entertains people," then my
> original question was: What makes a game entertaining to a vast number of
> people--so entertaining that those people will gladly play the game
repeatedly,
> teach it to their friends & children, and pass it down through the
generations?
What is well known and what is good are not always the same thing. Some
things are so entrenched in our culture that most people can't help but
learn them. Is there anyone who doesn't know how to play "War?" Probably
not too many people. Does that make it a good game? Not really.
-bob
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= b...@soda.berkeley.edu = It is now pitch black. You are likely to =
= go...@uclink.berkeley.edu = be eaten by a grue. --Zork =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Patrick Carroll
>things are so entrenched in our culture that most people can't help but
>learn them.
True enough. But I think things tend to stick around either because they serve
some utilitarian purpose or because they're widely deemed to have aesthetic
value.
Why are Shakespeare's works featured at most universities and widely published,
while the works of Ben Jonson and others are only rarely read or discussed?
Just happenstance? Or was there a good reason why Shakespeare became "so
entrenched in our culture" in the first place?
> Is there anyone who doesn't know how to play "War?" Probably
>not too many people. Does that make it a good game? Not really.
For the brief time I played War as a little boy, I thought it was a great game.
But like Tic-tac-toe, it seems to be one of those games that has more of a
utilitarian purpose: as a game suitable for children, which can serve as a
stepping-stone to games played by adults. If War didn't have that particular
use, as well as a certain appeal to youngsters, I don't think many people would
bother learning or playing it.
Seems to me things become "entrenched in our culture" for good (though
sometimes unconscious or hard-to-pinpoint) reasons, not by accident.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
>A great game is one you can play over and over again, and never
>> grow tired of. A two-dollar game that gives you & your friends a big
>thrill
>> one evening and then just gathers dust until the next garage sale is *not*
>a
>> great game (by my definition).
Graham Wills replied:
>You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I must say that I
>don't
>share it. There are great movies I will never see again - they have
>little
>re-see value and great movies I will watch over and over. The same is
>true
>in games.
The same may be true (for you) in games. But I think movies and games are
quite different animals. Movies (and novels, etc.) are a type of entertainment
that seems more or less aimed at one-time experience. Every time you see a
movie (or a play, or read a novel, etc.), it's the same. A game, in contrast,
is designed to be different each time you play it.
When I go to a movie, I walk in expecting to see it once and once only. Months
or years later, the movie may be broadcast on TV, and I may end up seeing it
again--but I don't approach it as something I *expect* to experience more than
once. And if I do see it repeatedly, I expect it to be less and less
interesting for me every time I see it (because more and more, it'll become
"old hat").
OTOH, who takes the trouble to learn Scrabble, thinking he'll play it just one
time and never again? Typically, one expects to play Scrabble now & again all
his life. The first game is perceived as just an introduction to a repeated
experience. Furthermore, one expects each game to be a little different, and
for his game skills (and familiarity with the game--and possibly also his
*enjoyment* of the game) to improve with each playing.
Sure, there are exceptions. I'm an old wargamer. I've bought games, studied
the rules, set up a scenario, and then never bothered to actually *play* the
game. Other games I've played only once. These were enjoyable
experiences--but IMHO it was not true *gaming.*
Games are partly a form of entertainment (though I personally think they're
more than just that). But they're a unique form of entertainment, quite
different from static art forms like movies & novels. In fact, games go beyond
music, painting, and sculpture in their dynamism: music is meant to be heard
repeatedly, painting and sculpture to be viewed constantly or repeatedly; but
games actually provide a different experience each time they're played--and
besides, they require *participation,* not just spectating.
That's part of why I consider "replay value" to be the primary mark of a great
game.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Christian Killoran
Jeff Fisher <jeffry...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3869D15F...@home.com...
> I would add "having achievable secondary objectives". A strategy game
> that can be fun to play in a losing cause is one that will attract more
> adherents than a game that is frustrating for all but the winner. In a
> great game, playing is like cake, and winning is frosting on the cake.
Interesting idea. I agree that playing in a game is frustrating when all
hope for victory is lost, but good manners require you to stay in until the
end. But I'm not sure if having a purpose built secondary objective would
make a game better - or even good.
Most ethical problems in multi-player games (kingmaking, etc.) seem to come
from players who stop playing to win and start pursuing some other
objective. In essence, they create their own victory conditions and start
playing a different game than their opponents. If a secondary objective
were included in a game's design, I foresee players "quitting" not when they
are eliminated from contention, but when their chances of winning become
slight. I've played games with folks who essentially "bug out" after even
minor set-backs.
I think a more constructive attribute is a game's ability to provide a slim
hope for a player who is behind to recover his position.
Graham Wills
>
> >> Q. What makes a game good?
> >
> >A game is good if it entertains people. Since
> >people are entertained by different things,
> >the criteria for a good game will be different for
> >everybody.
>
> Then what makes a movie good? Is "Ishtar" just as good a movie as
> "Casablanca"?
Most people would say not, since it entertained them less. Although
> Or to put it another way, if "a game is good if it entertains people," then my
> original question was: What makes a game entertaining to a vast number of
> people--so entertaining that those people will gladly play the game repeatedly,
> teach it to their friends & children, and pass it down through the generations?
Well, there are many different reasons. I don't really see
the utility of breaking them down into broad classes such as
'looks nice', 'i can play it with my children' and so on.
Patrick Carroll
>beauty to be found in many positions.
That's probably also what draws many people to the Kama Sutra. ;-)
>It sounds like you are using a deeper sense of aesthetics here.
>Chess has many flaws. . . .
No, actually I was using a shallower sense of aesthetics. I just like the
statuettes that serve as pieces, and the way they're neatly arrayed at the
start of a game, like well-organized medieval armies facing off.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
>is a reason I don't like chess or go.
Does that apply only to games where you can gain an advantage by reading up on
openings & well-studied lines of play? Or do you also dislike games that
reward "on-the-fly" memorization (e.g., card games and domino games, where it
pays to remember what your opponents have been drawing, playing, or
discarding)?
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
>following.
Have they? In comparison to other 20th century games, I suppose you could say
that. But in comparison to the whole gamut of games in the world . . .
well--let's wait fifty years and see how many people are still playing D&D or
M:tG. It may be that these games just happen to have a very *large* (but
short-lived) cult following.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Jeff Fisher
>
> Jeff Fisher <jeffry...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3869D15F...@home.com...
> > I would add "having achievable secondary objectives". A strategy game
> > that can be fun to play in a losing cause is one that will attract more
> > adherents than a game that is frustrating for all but the winner. In a
> > great game, playing is like cake, and winning is frosting on the cake.
>
> Interesting idea. I agree that playing in a game is frustrating when all
> hope for victory is lost, but good manners require you to stay in until the
> end. But I'm not sure if having a purpose built secondary objective would
> make a game better - or even good.
It depends on the objective. Usually it is something on the road to the
game's ultimate victory condition, not a great tangent that distorts
competitive balance. Perhaps I should have said "obtainable intermediate
objective", something you can complete even if you are losing so that
you have some sense of accomplishment and fulfillment (i.e. consolation
prize for playing out the game).
Example: In Britannia, a player can sweep in with an invading tribe and
have loads of fun lording over a region for awhile even though he may be
too far behind in the scoring to win the game. The invasion is dynamic,
and that one tribe may score better than its average, gratifying the
player even if an earlier tribe fizzled and lost him the game.
> Most ethical problems in multi-player games (kingmaking, etc.) seem to come
> from players who stop playing to win and start pursuing some other
> objective.
If there's no intermediate goal or payoff short of winning, then this
happens. If there are milestones to reward a player for staying the
course, then he's more likely to remain actively engaged (and enjoy) the
game to its end.
> In essence, they create their own victory conditions and start
> playing a different game than their opponents. If a secondary objective
> were included in a game's design, I foresee players "quitting" not when they
> are eliminated from contention, but when their chances of winning become
> slight. I've played games with folks who essentially "bug out" after even
> minor set-backs.
I've seen some bug out during the reading of the rules. They decide that
it's not their style of game, but they play anyway because they're there
and have nothing else to do. They spend the whole game randomly wrecking
other player's positions like an unending string of disaster cards
coming out of some invisible event deck. Good players learn how to
recognize them and either eliminate them or steer clear. In Diplomacy, I
have formed a working 6-player alliance for such.
> I think a more constructive attribute is a game's ability to provide a slim
> hope for a player who is behind to recover his position.
Yes, game balance is another good attribute. One of the best wargames
for depth of balance is Fortress America (MB). When it first came out,
we went through three full cycles of thinking the Americans would always
fall / would always win. Each time we refined our style of play on one
side, that side would win a few games until some genius countered on the
other side. Eventually it came down to patience, the dice, and a few
cards, nail-biting drama for the whole second half of the game.
Patrick Carroll
>objective", something you can complete even if you are losing so that
>you have some sense of accomplishment and fulfillment (i.e. consolation
>prize for playing out the game).
Wouldn't a simple point system work for that? In HotW and Adv. Civ., for
example, every player earns points throughout the game. Even though only one
player can end up with the most points, every player earns *some* points--and
can take pride in having accomplished that.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Rick Jones
>
> ideefixe wrote:
> >
> > Q. What makes a game good?
>
> A game is good if it entertains people. Since
> people are entertained by different things,
> the criteria for a good game will be different for
> everybody.
That certainly fits. Different strokes for different folks. It seems
that about 99% of the posters here love Settlers of Cataan, yet I'm one
of the people that found it ... I don't know, lacking. It didn't "do"
anything for me and is not on my list of games to buy, but then 80-90%
of the German games that have become so popular in recent years that I
have tried strike me that way.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
Nobody's life, liberty or property are safe while Congress is in
session.
Patrick Carroll
> I agree that playing in a game is frustrating when all
>hope for victory is lost, but good manners require you to stay in until the
>end. But I'm not sure if having a purpose built secondary objective would
>make a game better - or even good.
>
>were included in a game's design, I foresee players "quitting" not when they
>are eliminated from contention, but when their chances of winning become
>
>I think a more constructive attribute is a game's ability to provide a slim
>hope for a player who is behind to recover his position.
Could be a fine solution. Sometimes it pays to revisit classic games and look
at what has kept them so popular for so long.
In dominoes, for instance, the player who's behind always has an outside chance
of catching up. Though it's unlikely, it's possible to block the other players
turn after turn and rack up enough points to snatch victory from the jaws of
defeat.
Another feature is the "skunk" rule (which also figures in cribbage,
backgammon, and other games): the winner scores a double victory if his
opponent hasn't yet earned half the points it takes to win. So, if you're way
behind, you may find yourself struggling just to avoid being skunked--and if
you succeed in that, you may breathe a sigh of relief even though you did lose
a single game.
Backgammon offers yet another device to prevent the game from becoming boring
or miserable for the losing player: the doubling cube. When a player thinks he
has achieved a decisive advantage, he offers to double the stakes of the
game--and his opponent has to either accept the double or forfeit the game. If
both players agree that the advantage is decisive, that game ends immediately,
and another one can begin.
The computer game Master of Orion, IIRC, also had a misery-stopping device of
some sort. When one player got far enough ahead, there'd be a "council" of
some sort, where players could vote the lead player into power--which would
bring to an abrupt end a game that might otherwise drag on.
Personally, I tend to dislike the "doubling cube" device. It makes the game
seem incomplete to me. I prefer to play it all the way through, even if it is
one-sided.
I have no objection to the "skunk" device, though. It potentially rewards the
winner with an even greater victory, while also giving the loser an attainable
secondary point to shoot for.
I guess I have mixed feelings about the "slight chance to come from behind"
device. It's great when I'm behind and manage to pull ahead and win. It's
utterly disheartening when I'm on the verge of a well-earned victory and
another player miraculously darts past me at the last minute.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
ltc...@my-deja.com
p55ca...@aol.compliant (Patrick Carroll) wrote:
>
> Personally, I tend to dislike the "doubling cube" device. It makes
the game
> seem incomplete to me. I prefer to play it all the way through, even
if it is
> one-sided.
>
Patrick,
The "doubling cube" device is a perfectly valid device and a very big
part of backgammon. Entire books have been written about the doubling
cube. The doubling cube device depends not only on the current
situation of the game but also the current score of the match, and
that's what makes it a valid device, in my humblest of opinions.
I only point this out for those who may be unfamiliar with the game.
There is a big difference between a 'quick game of backgammon' and a
backgammon match. I am more inclined to play a quick game for fun than
an entire match. In that case the doubling cube is ignored for sure.
Jeff Thompson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michelle & Boyd Bottorff
D&D's already halfway there. Both games have had longer lifespans than
90% of the games ever invented.
Michelle & Boyd Bottorff
I've never really tried domino games. I'm neutral on card games. The
other reason I'm not estatic about chess or go is the way the board
doesn't change much over time (IE, five minutes later, you're looking at
the same board with only a couple pieces moved. And yes, before all the
chess supporters jump on me, I *KNOW* those pieces often change the
options you have, but they're the same bloody pieces on the same bloody
board in nearly the same bloody position.) With cards, five minutes
later, your hand looks entirely different.
Michelle & Boyd Bottorff
> That certainly fits. Different strokes for different folks. It seems
> that about 99% of the posters here love Settlers of Cataan, yet I'm one
> of the people that found it ... I don't know, lacking. It didn't "do"
> anything for me and is not on my list of games to buy, but then 80-90%
> of the German games that have become so popular in recent years that I
> have tried strike me that way.
Only about 80% of the posts I've seen on Settlers have been positive. I
was one of the people who found it lacking.
Michelle & Boyd Bottorff
> It depends on what you watch movies for. Ishtar isn't nearly as bad as its
> reputation.
If you come in halfway through, Ishtar is a good movie. Unfortunately,
the first half is about as fun as having teeth pulled. (The first time
I saw it, I *did* come in halfway through. So I wondered *why* it had
such a reputation... then I saw the beginning later on.
Christian Killoran
Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
news:19991230123108...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> I guess I have mixed feelings about the "slight chance to come from
behind"
> device. It's great when I'm behind and manage to pull ahead and win.
It's
> utterly disheartening when I'm on the verge of a well-earned victory and
> another player miraculously darts past me at the last minute.
I agree wholeheartedly to the extent that your lead is "well-earned!" I
have several friends who rate a game entirely on its "come from behind"
potential, and the classic games you mentioned (dominoes, backgammon,
cribbage, etc.) probably remain so popular because of this attribute. All
of these games, however, feature a pretty substantial luck element. I'm
disheartened too when somebody pulls off a miracle win, but I accept the
fact that my previous lead may well have been the result of having had more
good fortune than my opponent.
I guess I'd be most comfortable with a "come-back" system that was somehow
tied to the luck-skill equation of a particular game. And I don't really
disagree with Jeff's idea that a game should provide opportunities for
accomplishment that transcend outright victory. My real concern was the
viability of purposely designing a kind of consolation victory into a game.
ideefixe
----------
In article <s6kmh75...@corp.supernews.com>, "Christian Killoran"
<xm...@pcisys.net> wrote:
>Most ethical problems in multi-player games (kingmaking, etc.) seem to come
>from players who stop playing to win and start pursuing some other
>objective. In essence, they create their own victory conditions and start
>playing a different game than their opponents....
>
>I think a more constructive attribute is a game's ability to provide a slim
>hope for a player who is behind to recover his position.
>
>
My two cents:
The undisputable fact of the matter is that in many games the situation can
and often does arise that at least one player has no hope of winning.
Since this situation makes it impossible to play to win, I think it would be
more correct to say that the "ethical problems" you describe come from the
game itself, and that it is unfair to the players who find themselves in
that position to say that the problems come from them. It's not that they
chose not to play to win -- it's that they got stuck against their best
intentions in a lost position.
Once in that position, a player has only a few options. He can propose a
concession, having already lost -- but in a game with more than two players,
it is rare that the whole table is ready to concede to the leader before the
very final stages of the game. Failing that, the unfortunate player does
indeed reach the point of deciding what to play for, since he's no longer
playing for the win. It's not unethical that he does this -- it's merely
inevitable.
Here are four goals for the player in an unwinnable position that our gaming
group generally finds "ethically" acceptable, or if I may put it another
way, "sportsmanlike":
1. Play to maximize your score.
2. Play to come in second if you can't come in first, third if you can't
come in second.
3. Play to hit the leader.
4. Play to bring the game to a quicker conclusion.
These four do not have to be mutually exclusive, but you do sometimes find
yourself in the position of having to pick one or the other, and this is
where the proverbial "kingmaker" problem creeps in: A player who is not
himself playing for the win can find himself in the position of having to
choose which of the other players he is going to allow to win or keep from
winning. Even more specifically, if you are in "play to hit the leader"
mode, your analysis of which of the other players is actually the leader may
be right or wrong.
It is worth pointing out, though, that all these points of decision are
inherent in the game. You can lose the game because someone else thought
you were winning it and decided to hit you, in fact, whether that other
person thought he had a chance to win himself or not.
Occasionally we see it happen that Player C has to make a single choice in a
game that will win it outright for either Player A or Player B. When I'm in
that position, I try to make my play with an accompanying statement of the
situation. Like, "If I do this, it wins it for Jeff. If I do the other, it
wins it for Doug. So I'm doing this on the grounds that it moves my own
marker farther." Or whatever.
Finally, an example from a game of Medieval Merchant we played last week.
We were in the very final stages of the game, at the point where anyone who
chose to do so could end the game by taking the final village. The player
to my right had just scored a bunch of points, and I saw that I could not
catch up to him on my turn, and looking over the board, I didn't think
anyone else could, either. So I considered a de facto concession by my
ending the game, saying, "I don't see how anybody can possibly catch him.
Does anybody disagree with that?" Nobody wanted to come right out and make
up my mind for me, but I got the sense that maybe not everybody agreed. So
I looked the situation over again and decided, on the grounds that if I
ended the game right then, I would definitely lose, my only hope to win,
however slim, was for the game to continue. So I played it that way, and as
it turned out, the player to my left did score enough points to win the
game. Thus it was my decision that made the player to my left the winner
rather than the player on my right -- but I made the decision based on my
own chance to win.
When the game was over, the comment from the player on my right was, "I
thought sure you would end the game. I couldn't believe you would give up a
sure second place." In fact I had given up the chance to finish in second
place because I was still looking for the chance to finish in first place.
Even though my analysis had been incomplete, and I hadn't realized that I
was changing the winner of the game with my decision, I still think it was
based on the best possible rationale: I was trying to win. What's the
difference between second and fifth compared to a chance to win? This is
not poker.
But what if I had not had any chance whatsoever to win? Then what? End the
game because I'm losing and can't profit by extending it? Continue the game
so that the leader can be hit by others? There are good reasons for either
one -- and I'd simply have had to make the decision. Why? Because it's a
game.
Happy New Year everybody and Happy 2000's!
-- StvenC
Patrick Carroll
>The "doubling cube" device is a perfectly valid device and a very big
>part of backgammon.
Oh, yes. I've played in backgammon tournaments; and it's true that in that
particular game, the cube introduces a whole 'nuther dimension of subtlety.
But I still don't use it in casual games of backgammon. And I certainly
question its appropriateness for inclusion (as a principle--not necessarily in
the form of an actual doubling cube) in other games.
The closest equivalent I found in any other game is the afore-mentioned
"galactic council" rule in Master of Orion, where the game might end early if
one player takes an unstoppable lead. I find that especially inappropriate in
a solo computer game, because taking such a lead and then enjoying the fruits
of it (by being able to relax and cruelly toy with my beaten opponents for the
next while) is one of the great rewards of winning. And if I'm on the losing
end of it, I sometimes like to just see how long I can survive, and regard mere
survival as a pseudo-victory.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
>was one of the people who found it lacking.
I get the impression that the main thing Settlers did is fill a long-neglected
niche. Many popular "leisure-time" games were too long and/or too complicated;
and many people who played them once really *wanted* to play them again, but
didn't have the time or patience for it. Settlers came in like "Civilization
lite" and caught on like wildfire.
Now if someone would just design a game that's so unbelievably fantastic that
it's guaranteed to turn any non-gamer into an avid gamer. . . .
--P. C.,
Minnesota
JonMMorris
>The undisputable fact of the matter is that in many games the situation can
and often does arise that at least one player has no hope of winning.
In general, the more players in the game, the greater the chance of one player
dropping behind significantly.
>Since this situation makes it impossible to play to win, I think it would be
more correct to say that the "ethical problems" you describe come from the game
itself, and that it is unfair to the players who find themselves in that
position to say that the problems come from them. It's not that they chose not
to play to win -- it's that they got stuck against their best intentions in a
lost position.
I don't think many folks start out planning to lose. But some players are less
fixated on winning than others. As some of Patrick Carroll's threads have
shown, some players enjoy the social aspects and others enjoy the flavor of the
game. These folks may be more likely to find themselves in "a lost position"
because they aren't particularly trying to optimize their play.
>Once in that position, a player has only a few options. He can propose a
concession, having already lost -- but in a game with more than two players, it
is rare that the whole table is ready to concede to the leader before the very
final stages of the game. Failing that, the unfortunate player does indeed
reach the point of deciding what to play for, since he's no longer playing for
the win. It's not unethical that he does this -- it's merely
inevitable.
>Here are four goals for the player in an unwinnable position that our gaming
group generally finds "ethically" acceptable, or if I may put it another
way, "sportsmanlike":
>1. Play to maximize your score.
>2. Play to come in second if you can't come in first, third if you can't
come in second.
>3. Play to hit the leader.
>4. Play to bring the game to a quicker conclusion.
1 and 2 are pretty much the same strategy aren't they?
To 3, I would modify to say "hit the leader or one of the leaders if several
folks are close."
I don't like 4 much. That seems perilously close to childish behavior to me.
>These four do not have to be mutually exclusive, but you do sometimes find
yourself in the position of having to pick one or the other, and this is where
the proverbial "kingmaker" problem creeps in: A player who is not himself
playing for the win can find himself in the position of having to choose which
of the other players he is going to allow to win or keep from winning. Even
more specifically, if you are in "play to hit the leader" mode, your analysis
of which of the other players is actually the leader may be right or wrong.
Good observations.
>It is worth pointing out, though, that all these points of decision are
inherent in the game. You can lose the game because someone else thought you
were winning it and decided to hit you, in fact, whether that other person
thought he had a chance to win himself or not.
This is where whining is such a critical skill in interactive multiplayer
games. "Yes, I have the most points now but the guy in second has all the
momentum."
>Occasionally we see it happen that Player C has to make a single choice in a
game that will win it outright for either Player A or Player B. When I'm in
that position, I try to make my play with an accompanying statement of the
situation. Like, "If I do this, it wins it for Jeff. If I do the other, it
wins it for Doug. So I'm doing this on the grounds that it moves my own
marker farther." Or whatever.
Personally, I would propose a joint win for players A & B. My ability to drag
either of the two down to second place should be enough to enforce the "tie".
I would find that somewhat satisfying even though I didn't win.
A strong third-place political party can sometimes play kingmaker in a
parliamentary system if neither of the top two parties won a majority. Is
their behavior "unethical"?
>Finally, an example from a game of Medieval Merchant we played last week.
We were in the very final stages of the game, at the point where anyone who
chose to do so could end the game by taking the final village. The player to
my right had just scored a bunch of points, and I saw that I could not catch up
to him on my turn, and looking over the board, I didn't think anyone else
could, either. So I considered a de facto concession by my
ending the game, saying, "I don't see how anybody can possibly catch him. Does
anybody disagree with that?" Nobody wanted to come right out and make up my
mind for me, but I got the sense that maybe not everybody agreed. So I looked
the situation over again and decided, on the grounds that if I ended the game
right then, I would definitely lose, my only hope to win, however slim, was for
the game to continue. So I played it that way, and as it turned out, the
player to my left did score enough points to win the game. Thus it was my
decision that made the player to my left the winner
rather than the player on my right -- but I made the decision based on my own
chance to win.
I'm astounded that the player on your left didn't object to your concession
proposal.
>When the game was over, the comment from the player on my right was, "I
thought sure you would end the game. I couldn't believe you would give up a
sure second place." In fact I had given up the chance to finish in second
place because I was still looking for the chance to finish in first place.
Even though my analysis had been incomplete, and I hadn't realized that I was
changing the winner of the game with my decision, I still think it was
based on the best possible rationale: I was trying to win. What's the
difference between second and fifth compared to a chance to win? This is not
poker.
I agree with your point though the analogy of finishing second in a hand of
poker isn't the strongest part of your logic ;-)
>But what if I had not had any chance whatsoever to win? Then what? End the
game because I'm losing and can't profit by extending it? Continue the game so
that the leader can be hit by others? There are good reasons for either one --
and I'd simply have had to make the decision. Why? Because it's a game.
I wish I knew the answer to this one. I'd say the real answer may depend on
the group of players involved. What is acceptable behavior in one group may
be poor sportsmanship in another. If you're new to the group and uncertain of
the dynamics, it's probably best to err on the side of losing quietly. (You're
more likely to get invited back than if you thrash around in an unseemly
fashion).
>Happy New Year everybody and Happy 2000's!
Same to all!
--John
Michelle & Boyd Bottorff
> I agree wholeheartedly to the extent that your lead is "well-earned!" I
> have several friends who rate a game entirely on its "come from behind"
> potential
I fall into this camp, but the "come from behind" potential must be
something that has a luck element, but one where a skilled player is
more likely to gain from the luck element. IE, something where a
skilled player can calculate the odds of trying longshot strategies
against more conservative play-- knowing when to take the risk, and when
to go with the more likely win.
> I guess I'd be most comfortable with a "come-back" system that was somehow
> tied to the luck-skill equation of a particular game. And I don't really
> disagree with Jeff's idea that a game should provide opportunities for
> accomplishment that transcend outright victory. My real concern was the
> viability of purposely designing a kind of consolation victory into a game.
The one thing that really makes a game drag, for me, is being on the low
end of a multiplayer game where there isn't a real chance of coming
back-- you can't concede, because *others* are involved, and they were
basing their choices on the fact that you are where you are, but you
don't want to stick around for the next hour.
(My reason for not liking Settlers of Catan. If you fall behind, you're
finished.)
Bambino64
>group generally finds "ethically" acceptable, or if I may put it another
>way, "sportsmanlike":
>
>1. Play to maximize your score.
>2. Play to come in second if you can't come in first, third if you can't
>come in second.
>3. Play to hit the leader.
>4. Play to bring the game to a quicker conclusion.
I don't like #4 either - especially in a game like Kingmaker where the tide of
fate can change very quickly. I was in a tournament game where a player was
lacking, but had an Archbishop. Another player has everything he needed to win
the game EXCEPT a way to crown his hier King. Instead of hanging on to the
Archbishop and extending the game (but not the inevitable), he traded the
Archbishop for a town and the other player won the game.
He got the game over quick, but needless to say there was only one other happy
person sitting at the table.
Al
Patrick Carroll
>less
>fixated on winning than others. As some of Patrick Carroll's threads have
>shown, some players enjoy the social aspects and others enjoy the flavor of
>the
>game. These folks may be more likely to find themselves in "a lost position"
>because they aren't particularly trying to optimize their play.
That reminds me of a very enjoyable game of Adv. Civilization we played several
years ago. My friend & coworker Lamar was playing Crete and never really got
anywhere. He'd manage to get a toehold on a coast, then get bumped off time
after time. Nevertheless, he seemed to enjoy playing the game more than any of
us. Every turn he'd make up a little story about how his "Cretan beach bums"
were just looking for a new hangout--a place to do some surfing and catch a few
rays. It helped make the game more wonderful for all of us--even serious
militaristic expansionists like me.
IIRC, Lamar actually managed to come in second or third, too! At the end, I
was trying in vain to stir up a trade boycott against the leader, Egypt (played
by my wife, Sheralyn, who has probably never forgiven me for it), and wondering
why my vast territorial holdings weren't paying off. It finally dawned on me
that it's not Risk; that trade is more important than I had realized; and that
maybe it's not really my kind of game. So I ended up grumbling. But Lamar was
quite happy throughout, even though his second-place finish came as a complete
surprise to him and everyone.
I guess it's like the quote from a mountain climber I read in Reader's Digest a
month or so ago: "The best climber in the world is the one who's having the
most fun." Couldn't that also apply to gamers?
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Christian Killoran
ideefixe <idee...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:j1wb4.1043$Ec5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> My two cents:
>
> The undisputable fact of the matter is that in many games the situation
can
> and often does arise that at least one player has no hope of winning.
>
> Since this situation makes it impossible to play to win, I think it would
be
> more correct to say that the "ethical problems" you describe come from the
> game itself, and that it is unfair to the players who find themselves in
> that position to say that the problems come from them. It's not that they
> chose not to play to win -- it's that they got stuck against their best
> intentions in a lost position.
This is true. That's why I support game mechanics that allow for
"comebacks." My experience, however, has been that some players give up
BEFORE they're mathmatically eliminated. It is in those situations that I
find kingmaking disturbing.
> Here are four goals for the player in an unwinnable position that our
gaming
> group generally finds "ethically" acceptable, or if I may put it another
> way, "sportsmanlike":
>
> 1. Play to maximize your score.
> 2. Play to come in second if you can't come in first, third if you can't
> come in second.
> 3. Play to hit the leader.
> 4. Play to bring the game to a quicker conclusion.
All of these options are a bit distasteful to me, but I can't really fault
any of them. I might add "take yourself out in a spectacular or dramatic
manner" if appropriate to the game's spirit.
> Finally, an example from a game of Medieval Merchant we played last week.
> We were in the very final stages of the game, at the point where anyone
who
> chose to do so could end the game by taking the final village. The player
> to my right had just scored a bunch of points, and I saw that I could not
> catch up to him on my turn, and looking over the board, I didn't think
> anyone else could, either. So I considered a de facto concession by my
> ending the game, saying, "I don't see how anybody can possibly catch him.
> Does anybody disagree with that?" Nobody wanted to come right out and
make
> up my mind for me, but I got the sense that maybe not everybody agreed.
So
> I looked the situation over again and decided, on the grounds that if I
> ended the game right then, I would definitely lose, my only hope to win,
> however slim, was for the game to continue. So I played it that way, and
as
> it turned out, the player to my left did score enough points to win the
> game. Thus it was my decision that made the player to my left the winner
> rather than the player on my right -- but I made the decision based on my
> own chance to win.
I think you did the ONLY polite thing - no matter how small your chances
were, you played with victory in mind. To me, this is in no way kingmaking.
>
> When the game was over, the comment from the player on my right was, "I
> thought sure you would end the game. I couldn't believe you would give up
a
> sure second place." In fact I had given up the chance to finish in second
> place because I was still looking for the chance to finish in first place.
> Even though my analysis had been incomplete, and I hadn't realized that I
> was changing the winner of the game with my decision, I still think it was
> based on the best possible rationale: I was trying to win. What's the
> difference between second and fifth compared to a chance to win? This is
> not poker.
I think that's a good analogy...losing the pot with a full house is the same
as losing the pot with a pair of 3's.
ideefixe
thoughts on rebound:
(On these alternatives if you can't possibly win:)
>>1. Play to maximize your score.
>>2. Play to come in second if you can't come in first, third if you can't
>come in second.
>>3. Play to hit the leader.
>>4. Play to bring the game to a quicker conclusion.
>
>1 and 2 are pretty much the same strategy aren't they?
In some situations, yes; in others, no. (I did say they weren't mutually
exclusive.) You can be in a spot where hitting the guy who would otherwise
come in second, instead of maximizing your own score, can be the right play
to give you a chance at second.
>To 3, I would modify to say "hit the leader or one of the leaders if several
>folks are close."
Sure -- sometimes your position doesn't give you a shot at the leader, but
it does give you a shot at somebody else in contention.
>I don't like 4 much. That seems perilously close to childish behavior to me.
Well, it depends on the game situation. You may even be in a position where
1, 2, or 3 are already out of your range of options. I'm not talking about
throwing the game to the leader (or anybody else) as a means of getting the
game over -- I agree, that would be unsporting in a non-diplomatic game.
I'm talking about a situation such as often arises in Acquire (we play with
shareholdings hidden), where in the later stages of the game, if you play a
merger tile it does bring the game to a quicker conclusion, but you don't
know whose advantage it's going to work to, and the effect it will have on
the finish is likely to be (though there are exceptions) trivial anyway.
>All of these options are a bit distasteful to me, but I can't really fault
>any of them. I might add "take yourself out in a spectacular or dramatic
>manner" if appropriate to the game's spirit.
Yup, that one can be good, too.
>I don't like #4 either - especially in a game like Kingmaker where the tide of
>fate can change very quickly. I was in a tournament game where a player was
>lacking, but had an Archbishop. Another player has everything he needed to win
>the game EXCEPT a way to crown his hier King. Instead of hanging on to the
>Archbishop and extending the game (but not the inevitable), he traded the
>Archbishop for a town and the other player won the game.
>He got the game over quick, but needless to say there was only one other happy
>person sitting at the table.
Well, I don't know the game of Kingmaker, but let me ask this: Wasn't this
situation one that the designer of the game must have figured would arise?
How do you think, staying in the spirit of the game, the game situation
should have been resolved? What was the losing player supposed to have been
trying to do at that point?
Considering the name of the game, maybe this is exactly what was intended to
happen? I don't know. Is it supposed to be a diplomatic game, where
getting favors from other players is essential to victory? Certainly in
Diplomacy (a game I do know), if another player throws the game to you, you
have succeeded admirably within the premise of the game. But I agree that
in a non-diplomatic game, this is a very unsatisfactory conclusion.
>What's the
>difference between second and fifth compared to a chance to win? This is not
>poker.
>
>I agree with your point though the analogy of finishing second in a hand of
>poker isn't the strongest part of your logic ;-)
Actually what I meant was not a single hand of poker but an entire poker
game. At the end of a long night of poker, coming in second is a LOT better
than coming in fifth. The point is, in poker, you're not playing to "win
the game," you're playing for stakes. Conversely, in the usual board game,
you are not playing for stakes but to win the game. There may be some
consolation in coming in second, but only after the opportunity to come in
first has disappeared.
>A strong third-place political party can sometimes play kingmaker in a
>parliamentary system if neither of the top two parties won a majority. Is
>their behavior "unethical"?
>
Politics, insofar as it is a game, is a game, like poker, played for stakes.
So coming in second can be a lot better than coming in fifth.
Gamely -- Stven C
Jeff Fisher
>
> I support game mechanics that allow for "comebacks."
I like some comebacks better than others. Some games allow for diverse
strategies, so that a player can chart an untested course, seem to fall
way behind, and then come roaring back if the strategy finally pays off.
Other games simply overthrow the leader with a throw of the dice or the
turn of a card. I like the former because it depends on the foresight
and daring of the players. I detest the latter because it mocks skill
and effort, making the game pointless.
> I might add "take yourself out in a spectacular or dramatic
> manner" if appropriate to the game's spirit.
I like that one. I also like achieving a special "everybody loses"
condition like the nuclear winters in Supremacy (the result of every
game of Supremacy I have ever played or seen) and Nuclear War card game
(which I once pulled off in final retaliation in a tournament).
-- Jeff Fisher <>< Vancouver WA
Be careful what you ask for; you might get it.
To reply, replace ".dont_spam." with '@'
ben
Carroll) wrote:
>Jeff notes:
After playing dozens of wargames and historical games for 24 years, I
found the perfect game in 1999 :)
Clue(do): also the game got better in a direct port to computer.
I think I played Cluedo well over a hundred times in the last 8 months
or so. So what makes it thick?
- Short playing time from 45 Min to 1.5 Hrs
- Puzzle solving (5 to 6 players is best)
- Internet play on the zone and a direct port IS possible
- Tension and misleading
- Few "counters" and cards to handle
- Tactical play
- Beautiful components of the 50th anniversary boardgame edition
- Atmosphere of the 1930's (Hercule Poirot)
So perhaps I am growing old and after playing ASL and 3 Reich I am
coming back to basics again. :)
To summarize: components, "art nouveau", short playing times, player
interaction, availability of different players and good and easy game
mechanics,
ideefixe
>I like that one. I also like achieving a special "everybody loses"
>condition like the nuclear winters in Supremacy (the result of every
>game of Supremacy I have ever played or seen) and Nuclear War card game
>(which I once pulled off in final retaliation in a tournament).
>
>-- Jeff Fisher <>< Vancouver WA
>
That's interesting. The only game of Supremacy I ever played ended in a
draw amongst all six players as no one felt he could afford to launch the
first attack.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> >Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering have gotten more than a cult
> >following.
>
> Have they? In comparison to other 20th century games, I suppose you could say
> that. But in comparison to the whole gamut of games in the world . . .
> well--let's wait fifty years and see how many people are still playing D&D or
> M:tG. It may be that these games just happen to have a very *large* (but
> short-lived) cult following.
Well it may hold for MtG, but D&D has been around for 25 years. Thats not
short lived...nor is it a small hobby either, pretty much any roleplayer
around will have at least been exposed to it, though with the wider spread
of good systems around now thats going to hold less and less. If you chose
to examine RPGs as a concept then its definitely a strong hobby.
Considering it a short lived cult game suggests it was an early teen fad,
followed by dropping it for other pursuits...well there are a lot of
people for whom it was like that, particularly in the mid eighties, it
doesn;t define the hobby.
Not wishing to denigrate Chess, but have met far far far fewer people who
play Chess seriously than I have gamers a la Settlers et al, and I know
fewer gamers than I do RPGers. That may be due to the circles I move in,
but if I asked how many people knew Chess, then I would probably get
everyone in all those groups raising their hands...which is the true
expression of Chess' penetration of culture, those who have been taught it
cos its a classic or those who play it and love it?
Tim
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Patrick Carroll
>which is the true
>expression of Chess' penetration of culture, those who have been taught it
>cos its a classic or those who play it and love it?
Good question!
It's certainly much easier to teach someone to play chess, checkers (draughts),
dominoes, and most other classic, traditional games than it is to teach the
typical modern, boxed game. Most everyone I know can play checkers and
chess--and an odd assortment of card games--but how many actually do play them?
And how often? And would they prefer those games to others if they knew as
much about games as we r.g.b. frequenters do?
Food for thought.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Steve Spisak
: >from players who stop playing to win and start pursuing some other
: >objective. In essence, they create their own victory conditions and start
: >playing a different game than their opponents....
: Here are four goals for the player in an unwinnable position that our gaming
: group generally finds "ethically" acceptable, or if I may put it another
: way, "sportsmanlike":
: 1. Play to maximize your score.
: 2. Play to come in second if you can't come in first, third if you can't
: come in second.
: 3. Play to hit the leader.
: 4. Play to bring the game to a quicker conclusion.
I must disagree with most of the above.
Unless the game has a ranking system, option 2, to me, is bad
sportsmanship. Let the leaders fight it out amongst themselves. I
disagree with option 4, because, that too can prevent people, who have an
honest shot of winning, from doing so. Option 3 is the same as option 2,
whether you hit the guy in first, or the guy in second, you are still
doing someone elses work.
I agree with number 1. If you are playing AoR, and you have a Silk card,
attack silk sites, regardless of ownership.
However, my first question is: Am I out of it because one of the leaders
went out of his way to bury me?
I've played AoR, where my demise was my own bad luck and misfortune. One
the last turn of the game, I Black Deathed my OWN home nation, so as not
to affect the outcome of the game.
If player X screwed me over, then, it's like the executive who steps on
one too many people in his climb to the top. I will happily hammer on
him. This, to me, is not playing king maker. Player X did nothing to me,
player Y punished and screwed me at every turn. Net effect, I will spend
the last turn attacking player Y.
Am I playing Kingmaker? I say no. Both X and Y are about the same in
score, but, X did it through honest negotiation and even handed play, Y
did it by deceit, a backstabbing you into the ground, both players have to
expect ramifications from their actions - while X expects you won't betray
any deals with him, or screw him over, Y ~must~ expect payback for his
play.
Which leads to one of my cardinal rules of multiplayer. Try not to kick a
dog when it's down. People remember who put the last nail in the coffin.
So, my rules in that sitatuion:
1. Pay back any favours, positive AND negative, you own to other players
for their conduct toward you during the game. If all players are
equalized, allow the leaders to battle it out, themselves, without
interference.
2. Improve your score in an honest manner.
Heck, in AoR, I will say "I am going for Silk this turn, because I have
Silk. I also have Pirates and Vikings, I will destroy cities from anyone
who attacks my domination markers - attack someone else". This
accomplishes both 1 and 2. I will improve my score, if I manage to keep
the silk, and I will pay someone back, for taking the last bite out of my
a$$. It also gives the leaders the opportunity to think "hmmm, Steve is
in last place, he has a goal, and he is a loose cannon, best to ignore
him and attack the other leader". If no one attacks me, I will P&V
useless cities, so as not to effect the race for first.
That, to me, is more fair. Because I have one gamer I play AoR with, who
likes the "I can't win, I'll play for second" (which translates to, I
can't win, so neither will you). I then take the last turn to punish him,
forgoing any chance of winning, to try and drive him FURTHER down in
ranking (modifying MY victory conditions, in essence). Neither of us win,
with luck I maintain 2nd, and drive him to 4th or worse. However, WITHOUT
him attack only me, I _had_ a chance to win. I had done nothing to him
all game. I spent most of the game slowly climbing up from a slow start
to be in a position to challenge, only to have Bill (that's his name)
screw me out of a chance - and since this is not a tournament, there are
no points for second place.
Steve
David Bernazzani
>It's certainly much easier to teach someone to play chess, checkers (draughts),
>dominoes, and most other classic, traditional games than it is to teach the
>typical modern, boxed game. Most everyone I know can play checkers and
>chess--and an odd assortment of card games--but how many actually do play them?
I suspect many do play them. I prefer chess to most games I've played
- even though I may get a wonderful German game and it is my
"favorite" game at the time, after the months wear on I may not play
it as often - but I will always be up for a game of Chess. I never
tire of the endless positions which arise in the games. Perhaps I've
been exposed to chess for far longer - I've been playing and studying
for 20 years and look forward to continued playing throughout my days.
Some of my friends at work play chess at least occasionally - perhaps
2-4 times per year. I play somewhere between 10 and 100 times each
year.
As for Card games - most of you know my feelings here. Playing cards
are one of the cheapest and greatest forms of entertainment we have
available to us. Most of the people I know play some form of Rummy,
Cribbage, Hearts, Solitaire and some play Bridge or Poker. They
played cards when they were young. They played them last year, this
year, and will likely play them until they are very old.
I am not fond of Checkers and so will not comment.
For fun, take a look at the Microsoft Gaming Zone. I just checked
(just past dinner EST which means most of the US is still at work and
Europe is going to sleep) and there were 1200 people playing chess and
almost 10000 people playing some form of cards (Bridge, Spades,
Hearts, Cribbage or Euchre). It's impossible to extrapolate - but I
would guess that 10000 people playing cards at any given time online
might mean hundreds of thousands of people play cards on a daily basis
(no, I have no proof so I expect to be challenged on this).
The only thing I'm sure of is that I like to play cards a couple times
each week ;)
> And how often? And would they prefer those games to others if they knew as
>much about games as we r.g.b. frequenters do?
As much as I like the current crop of German games, it's hard for me
to place them on the same tier with Chess or Playing cards - both of
which I would take to a desert island before any of the current crop -
even though if you ask me what my current favorite game is I would
likely reply 'Torres'... I simply cannot say if Torres will stand the
test of time for me - unlike playing cards and Chess which have been a
constant source of leisure my whole life. One never knows how long
they will be stranded on that proverbial island...
Regards,
Dave Bernazzani
db...@gis.net
http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers Association)
Patrick Carroll
>to place them on the same tier with Chess or Playing cards - both of
>which I would take to a desert island before any of the current crop -
So would I. Still, I thought Tim's question was a very good one. There's a
part of me that appreciates classic games just because they're time-honored and
familiar; and sometimes I wonder if they're really as good as I make them out
to be.
Lately, dominoes has been my thing. It has some of the aesthetic appeal of a
chess set (solid, weighty game pieces) but plays more like a card game. Only
not quite--because during play, you end up building a structure on the
tabletop.
Drawbacks of chess, to me, are that it's strictly a two-player game and
involves some heavy concentration & deep thinking (whether you're in the mood
for it or not). Dominoes can be played by most any number of people; and it
can be a very light, casual game or a serious one.
Playing cards are more compact and versatile than dominoes. But cards have a
downside, as I see it. For one thing, they wear out with regular use and need
to be replaced, which I think detracts from their aesthetic appeal. Also,
there are whole encyclopedias of widely disparate card games--so you're never
sure what you're in for when someone asks, "Wanna play cards?" I may want to
play some version of rummy, but I'll be disappointed if I get roped into
playing something like whist. There are lots of dominoes variants, but
basically just two kinds of dominoes game (the block, or draw, game, and the
point games)--and even those two have more commonality than differences.
So, if I had to take that trip to the desert island today, I'd arrive there
with a set of dominoes.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Patrick Carroll
Many people are quick to throw up their hands and say it's just a matter of
taste. I can agree with that, but I think it's possible to look more closely.
A game (according to Webster's) is basically a competition engaged in for
diversion or amusement. The two key elements here are competition and
diversion. In other words, challenge and fun.
I'll add a third element: people. A game in and of itself is just a
collection of inanimate objects. It takes people to bring it alive. And
anytime people sit down to play a game, they imbue it with their spirit and
personalities.
So, of those three basic elements, which is most important in determining how
good a game is? Is a game good if it's highly challenging (even if it's not
much fun)? Is it good if it's terrific fun (even if it's not challenging)? Is
it good if it attracts a lot of people to play it (even if it's not fun or
challenging enough to hold their interest for more than a couple gaming
sessions)?
The answer, IMHO, depends on the type of gamer who's evaluating the game. As
I've repeated in various places at various times, I think there are basically
three kinds of gamer: the Competitor, the Socializer, and the Dreamer. The
Competitor is mainly into games for the challenge; the Socializer mainly for
the interaction with people; and the Dreamer mainly for the imaginative fun &
diversion.
(Aside: In another ng, someone posted a quick self-test you can do to find out
your gaming type. Call up the free solitaire game that comes with Windows, and
play a game. If you keep playing till you win, you're a Competitor. If you
quickly get bored & restless and can't finish the game, you're a Socializer.
If you change the card-back design or wonder what the Queen of Hearts would be
like in real life, you're a Dreamer.)
Anyhow, I think a game can be good if it appeals to any of the three types of
gamer. If it's extremely challenging (without being impossibly frustrating), it
can be good--for the Competitor--even if it's not especially fun or very
appealing to the masses. Or, if the game is intensely absorbing, it can be
good--for the Dreamer--even if it's not especially challenging or popular. Or,
if the game has wide popular appeal, it can be good--to the Socializer--even if
it's not highly challenging or immersively engaging.
Maybe the ideal game would be satisfying to all three types of gamer. But I
don't know what game that would be. And even if such a game exists, I imagine
there are extremists--of all three gaming types--who'd regard it as a so-so
compromise.
At any rate, whenever someone says that Game X is great (or lousy), I always
figure it says at least as much about that person as it does about the game.
--P. C.,
Minnesota