Boardgame News.... with Bite.

ubarose wrote:

I'm no expert. I only own 29 games

How many games does someone need to own for their opinion to be considered valid, informative or useful?

Just asking.

You need enough to pose for pictures like this, then you can be taken seriously:

Hope he doesnt mind, but Vlaada Chvatil posted the best defence/usage of victory points in games I've seen:


Although I see your point in this article, I have to disagree with “whoever has most victory points wins” as a sign of unoriginality and uniform euro-design.

Personally, I even don’t consider the general idea of “victory points” to be a game mechanic. It is rather some ranking, some numeric expression of your success in the game. The fact most modern games use some kind of this ranking (no matter whether it is victory point track, hidden pile of victory point tiles, victory point cards, rules how to count victory points at the end, or combination of all and no matter whether you call it Victory Points, Fame, Gold, Prestige etc.) is not because of lack of invention. It is because most games work better with victory points.

It keeps all players in the game till the end. Not only because it replaces the obsolete “wipe out all your enemies” goal. It gives some goal even to players who are sure they can’t win anymore. They still can fight for second place, or at least try to score as many VPs as possible.

It also helps to have more predictable game length. Contrary to “ when a player fulfills this goal, he wins and the game is over” (which can result in a long and anticlimactic “don’t let him win” passage of the game), VPs allow you to make the game length constant or only slightly controlled by the players - i.e. to let it end at some point, and then count VPs. It increases usability of the game - when picking game to be played, it is good to know whether it will last half an hour or three hours.

I really like strong theme in the game, and I appreciate when the mechanics are well tied with the theme. Of course, VPs support somewhat dry design of games, where you do take some abstract and artificial actions to score as most VPs as possible, and where theme is only for purposes of game graphic art and title. But they does not imply that - the game can have great theme with well incorporated goal or multiple goals; the victory points just measure them, making the game working better as a game while not spoiling the game story.

Great stuff from a designer I really respect.

Yeah there is nothing worse than games that have that moment of "don't let him win" which adds another hour or two sometimes. I refuse to play games like that anymore. ZOMBIES!!! has that in it and the game never frickin' ends. It's so brutal.

I like being able to play for not-last place as well. Sometimes you know you won't win but you can decide who will win through your actions. I always avoid that and just work to pump up my own score as much as possible so I don't come in last (and hopefully come in second or something).

Sometimes that action will have an advantageous effect on the guy in 1st place, securing his/her win and some other players take issue with that but I think this is a better result than if I just gave up and spent my last few turns passing. ugh...

Juniper wrote:

the*mad*gamer wrote:

BGN has about as much bite as a toothless poodle!

I'm pretty sure that's not a poodle.

Looks like a bichon friese to me.

Stephen Avery wrote:
"What is OP stand for?"
Ask Matt. He preferred OP before he got a taste for DP.

Sagrilarus wrote:
"Sure as hell isn't a poodle -- it's got six legs."
It's a poodle-centaur.

ubarose wrote:
"How many games does someone need to own for their opinion to be considered valid, informative or useful?"
T.O.S. officially defines it as the number of games that Michael Barnes owns +1.

T.O.S. officially defines it as the number of games that Michael Barnes owns +1

The good news is that number keeps going down. By the end of 2009, you'll only need 8 or 9 games to be "in the know".

Ryan, your article got pretty much exactly the response I'd expect. Which boils down to three key arguments that are ALWAYS the ones that the boardgaming community comes up with when confronted with questions of nepotism, insularity, and elitism:

1) "What do you know?"
2) "Pish posh, everything's groovy"
3) "Let's talk about something else"

Of course, GoF attendees can't see the forest for the trees because they're in the damn bubble where these games are being created!

Juniper wrote:

LOL.


You totally should have photo-chopped him in a jaunty little hat, though.

Ryan, since you posted a comment in response to Matt Thrower's article in which you advise him on how to improve his writing, I was very interested to see what you can do with words and what kind of example you would set. Unfortunately, it seems to me that your article contains little or no substantive commentary and analysis of its own. If you were to follow your own advice and "tighten up" your article, the result would be something similar to what Tom Hancock produced in the short paragraph above. In my view it would have been more appropriate and honest if you simply posted a small note on your website asking people to read and comment on the discussion that took place here in response to Matt's article.

EDIT: I deleted and changed a couple of sentences that were a bit harsh.

Vlaada Chvatil wrote:

...the obsolete “wipe out all your enemies” goal...

W. T. F?

...can fight for second place...

Jesus on a drumstick. He totally fails the "What Would Conan Do?" test.

I thought the best bits were the shock troops coming in to attack against your mention of Sodom & Gomorrah (Fortress Ameritrash) and Satan (Barnes) - I loved it when they dropped in all their hive-speak propaganda about those two subjects.

TheDukester wrote:

Where's the part where Larry Levy chimes in and sets you straight? That's always my favorite.

Done.

Also, we have achieved Barnes-bashing. Hooray! Although, shamefully, not one of them mentioned his terrible choices in the Trashdome.

Black Barney wrote:

Yeah there is nothing worse than games that have that moment of "don't let him win" which adds another hour or two sometimes. I refuse to play games like that anymore. ZOMBIES!!! has that in it and the game never frickin' ends. It's so brutal.

I like being able to play for not-last place as well. Sometimes you know you won't win but you can decide who will win through your actions. I always avoid that and just work to pump up my own score as much as possible so I don't come in last (and hopefully come in second or something).

Sometimes that action will have an advantageous effect on the guy in 1st place, securing his/her win and some other players take issue with that but I think this is a better result than if I just gave up and spent my last few turns passing. ugh...

I play all my games to be in 'not last place' now... I look for game mechanics that can keep me in 'not last place' for hours and hours on end. I'll never 'win', but I know I can strive to be in 'not last place'... Oh boy is that fun too!!! Does anyone know of a game that I can play for maybe 6-12 hours on end and know that there will be no chance of a 'winner'? Yee haw! Good times. 'Winning' is for losers.

Michael Barnes wrote:
"The good news is that number keeps going down. By the end of 2009, you'll only need 8 or 9 games to be "in the know"."
Seriously? There must be more games than that that you consider essential, surely?

OMG!! OMG!! you're talking about owning 8 or 9 different sets of Dominion!!
And one ATOE!

Bullwinkle wrote:

...can fight for second place...

Jesus on a drumstick. He totally fails the "What Would Conan Do?" test.

In the real world of earning profit, I would gladly settle for second or third because that's still a lot of money and success. In a board game I don't see the point, you either win or lose. You can play the game again and maybe the outcome will be different. If I come in second place, its because I failed to come in first place not because I fought someone for second.