Today, we're talking about the classic game Sorry. For those of you who don't know the game, here's a brief rundown. Each player has 4 pawns that start in a safe start area. You have to play a 1 or 2 to get a pawn out. Then your goal is to get each of your pawns to your own home area, which consists of going through almost every spot on the board.
There's a lot of luck in Sorry, as you've come to expect from most mainstream games. Sorry comes down to draw a card, play a card, so there's not much strategy for most of the game. One change I've seen that allows for a great deal of strategy is to have players maintain a 5 card hand. That way they can choose when to play a Sorry! card, when to pull their pawns out of start, and when to simply move. It's not a perfect change, but it's a good one.
I still enjoy Sorry, especially when I play with the 5 card hand rule. It's a game as written that I can play with young kids, and as they get older, I'd add in the hand element to teach them some strategy. It's fun moving pawns over the board, and oddly satisfying to get a Sorry! card at that key moment.
Sure, Sorry isn't the most grueling mental exercise, but as a way to pass time with every player having an equal chance to win, it's a pretty good game.
While we're on the topic of Sorry, let me bring up Sorry Sliders. Sorry Sliders is a dexterity game that happens to use the Sorry name for recognition. Some of the rules do translate, such as having 4 pawns at start which you are trying to get home, but the game is all about sliding these cool pawns that have a ball-bearing in them to slide along the track. Once again, it's not a complex game, but still a lot of fun to be had by players of all ages.
On a personal note, I haven't been playing many games lately, my gaming family has been fairly busy, but to that end, I'll be in Santa Barbara this weekend, and have Friday night and all day Saturday scheduled for game playing, so look for a post on that either as I'm playing or in the days following.
Showing posts with label I Don't Think We're in Candyland Anymore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label I Don't Think We're in Candyland Anymore. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Life: If only it were as easy as start with a car, get a job, get married, get a house, have kids, retire.
Today we're talking about the classic game LIFE. I have to be honest upfront and say that this is one of my least favorite classic games. My sister loved it, but to me, the biggest choice was which path to choose when they went separate ways, and if I should buy stock in a number or not. To me, the game was far too much luck, and no choice, but I'm getting ahead of myself here.
There are a few things to like about the Game of Life. It is a fairly accurate portrayal of the major events that can happen in one's life. It does reward going to college, so that's something positive to take away. It does require one to get married before having kids, and not to play any kind of personal view card, but being married before having kids is a good value to teach kids playing the game. The board is visually appealing, especially with the hills and buildings giving it a 3D view. In the version I have, the pieces are of good quality, the people pegs fit in the minivans without issue, and the tokens and cards are high quality.
As for the negatives, there are many. A player is completely at the mercy of the spinner most of the time. Spin high consistently and you'll finish early, but the odds are you won't have enough life tiles to actually win. Spin low consistently and you won't get bonuses at the end, but you should have a lot of life tiles to make up the difference and then some. That brings me to the next point, life tiles. The distribution is too random. Someone could get 3 tiles, and each have $250,000, while someone else gets 6 tiles at $50,000, and is nowhere close to the person who only got three. In addition, the job pool is fine, but determining salary based on a random pull is just an odd choice, same thing with the house. In fact, it's better to have the cheapest house possible because there's no appreciation or resale of the home at the end. It's a great idea for a house, but the mechanic makes no sense.
I don't want to bash Life too much. It was a game that my mom and sister would actually play, and that resulted in some good family time. It is an easy enough game to play with young kids, and it gives people a journey to go through. There isn't a lot of competitiveness or player interaction here, but it's kinda fun to watch what other people are doing.
One improvement I would offer is to use a d6 for movement instead of the 10 spot spinner. It would make the game a bit longer, but it would also keep players closer, and give more chances to earn life tiles.
There aren't many hobby games that use the theme or the mechanics of Life, so it's hard to find a comparison. Games where you roll the dice, or spin a spinner and see what happens just don't make for strategic gameplay. The closest game I know of is This Game is Bonkers, but that's only in mechanics.
I have played and enjoyed Star Wars Life, but copies are hard to find these days, and only getting harder to find. If you like Life and Star Wars and you see this at a garage sale or thrift store, PICK IT UP! It's worth it.
There are a few things to like about the Game of Life. It is a fairly accurate portrayal of the major events that can happen in one's life. It does reward going to college, so that's something positive to take away. It does require one to get married before having kids, and not to play any kind of personal view card, but being married before having kids is a good value to teach kids playing the game. The board is visually appealing, especially with the hills and buildings giving it a 3D view. In the version I have, the pieces are of good quality, the people pegs fit in the minivans without issue, and the tokens and cards are high quality.
As for the negatives, there are many. A player is completely at the mercy of the spinner most of the time. Spin high consistently and you'll finish early, but the odds are you won't have enough life tiles to actually win. Spin low consistently and you won't get bonuses at the end, but you should have a lot of life tiles to make up the difference and then some. That brings me to the next point, life tiles. The distribution is too random. Someone could get 3 tiles, and each have $250,000, while someone else gets 6 tiles at $50,000, and is nowhere close to the person who only got three. In addition, the job pool is fine, but determining salary based on a random pull is just an odd choice, same thing with the house. In fact, it's better to have the cheapest house possible because there's no appreciation or resale of the home at the end. It's a great idea for a house, but the mechanic makes no sense.
I don't want to bash Life too much. It was a game that my mom and sister would actually play, and that resulted in some good family time. It is an easy enough game to play with young kids, and it gives people a journey to go through. There isn't a lot of competitiveness or player interaction here, but it's kinda fun to watch what other people are doing.
One improvement I would offer is to use a d6 for movement instead of the 10 spot spinner. It would make the game a bit longer, but it would also keep players closer, and give more chances to earn life tiles.
There aren't many hobby games that use the theme or the mechanics of Life, so it's hard to find a comparison. Games where you roll the dice, or spin a spinner and see what happens just don't make for strategic gameplay. The closest game I know of is This Game is Bonkers, but that's only in mechanics.
I have played and enjoyed Star Wars Life, but copies are hard to find these days, and only getting harder to find. If you like Life and Star Wars and you see this at a garage sale or thrift store, PICK IT UP! It's worth it.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Risk OR I Shall Conquer Your Territory, Oh Wait, You Rolled a 6, AGAIN!
That's right, today is Risk day. I have a lot of fond memories involving Risk. I think I first played when I was 10, but I watched my cousins play for a few years before that. They'd never let me play with them, but that was probably more because they wanted to maintain their group order and long-standing alliances. The first time I ever played was with my best friend from elementary school, and boy did we get the rules wrong. It was also a two-player game, which is not the way to play Risk.
For those of you not familiar with Risk, let me run down how it works. Players take turns to conquer territories and eventually take over the world by using armies and dice. Eventually players are eliminated and only one remains. Combat is straightforward, the attacker rolls up to 3 attack dice, the defender 2, and you compare high die with high die and next high with next high, with the defense winning ties. The advantage of the defense winning ties leads to a lot of build-up and very little fighting until someone goes on a run.
There's a lot to like when it comes to Risk. There's some military strategy, at least with troop deployment, the combat mechanics are simple. The global scale gives players a grand sense of control. People can easily learn the game, and the rules are straightforward.
Now, for all the good things, there are problems with the game. The first problem comes with dice. The simple fact is that one troop can hold off a whole army, even destroy that entire army by rolling a 6 repeatedly, or at least as high as the high die from the attacker. Sure, the odds are that they can't keep this up, but dice do weird things sometimes. Another issue is that every territory starts with at least one troop, so combat is required from the star in order to get cards. It also gives players no where to expand, and troops in places they simply don't care about. The more elegant solution is presented in Risk Legacy by having each player start in one territory and expand from there. A third issue is in the trade-in of cards. Players don't want to trade in, because their opponents will get more troops than they do,
So, we have some good things with Risk. I won't deny that this was my favorite game for awhile, and it was the reason I was introduced to Catan, but Risk has it's bad parts. It's a long game, unpredictable time frame, and it has player elimination, which in itself isn't a bad thing, but combined with the long timeframe, it leads to bored people.
As I always try to do, here are some alternative games based on why you like Risk.
For those of you not familiar with Risk, let me run down how it works. Players take turns to conquer territories and eventually take over the world by using armies and dice. Eventually players are eliminated and only one remains. Combat is straightforward, the attacker rolls up to 3 attack dice, the defender 2, and you compare high die with high die and next high with next high, with the defense winning ties. The advantage of the defense winning ties leads to a lot of build-up and very little fighting until someone goes on a run.
There's a lot to like when it comes to Risk. There's some military strategy, at least with troop deployment, the combat mechanics are simple. The global scale gives players a grand sense of control. People can easily learn the game, and the rules are straightforward.
Now, for all the good things, there are problems with the game. The first problem comes with dice. The simple fact is that one troop can hold off a whole army, even destroy that entire army by rolling a 6 repeatedly, or at least as high as the high die from the attacker. Sure, the odds are that they can't keep this up, but dice do weird things sometimes. Another issue is that every territory starts with at least one troop, so combat is required from the star in order to get cards. It also gives players no where to expand, and troops in places they simply don't care about. The more elegant solution is presented in Risk Legacy by having each player start in one territory and expand from there. A third issue is in the trade-in of cards. Players don't want to trade in, because their opponents will get more troops than they do,
So, we have some good things with Risk. I won't deny that this was my favorite game for awhile, and it was the reason I was introduced to Catan, but Risk has it's bad parts. It's a long game, unpredictable time frame, and it has player elimination, which in itself isn't a bad thing, but combined with the long timeframe, it leads to bored people.
As I always try to do, here are some alternative games based on why you like Risk.
- First off, Risk Legacy if you have a consistent play group. It maintains the Risk mechanics, but offers a lot of variety.
- Memoir '44, Battlelore, or Command and Colors gives you the combat, a short play time, and a more historical flare.
- Axis and Allies is a classic, though it still suffers from the long playtime.
- If you really like Risk, but you want a better game under the Risk header, take a look first at Legacy, but then at Risk 2210 or Risk Godstorm. Self note, if anyone is looking to get 2210, let me know, I have it for trade or sale.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Murder? OR Mr. Boody is Dead, Which One of You Did it? Oh Wait, It's ME!
This week for Not In Candyland, we're talking Clue, or Cluedo for the Brits among us.
I write this with the disclaimer that Clue was and is still my favorite mass market game, I even went to a character night as Mr. Boody, it was easy, white dress shirt, black bow tie, jacket, dress pants. But I digress.
Clue is the classic who done it game. Essentially it's a race to figure out who did it, what they used, and where the murder took place. Now, the fact that you don't know where the murder took place, yet you have a body is odd, as well as the fact that your character can be the murderer and you don't even know it. Those bits aside, it still is a reasonable deduction game.
I like the aspect of figuring out what's missing from the deck. You have to use the cards in your hand to help do that, but you have to be careful because everyone else hears your suspicions, meaning if something goes around the table with no response they know either you have those cards, or that is the set of mystery items. When I first played the game it was all about me figuring things out, but then I learned to pay attention to what everyone else was asking. I started to notice patterns with what people asked and I was eventually able to figure out what they had in their hand.
I won't go too much into the strategy behind clue, since that eliminates some of the fun. Also, my ideas are by no means perfect, but I do tend to win a fair bit. What I have noticed is that players spend most of their turns rolling dice and not making a room. I think an improvement to the game would be to make sure players could go to a room each turn. As the board is now, some rooms are much harder to get to, i.e. Kitchen, Billiard Room, and others are easy. The secret passageways do help movement, but it leads to clumping of characters. It's also annoying when someone suspects you, forcing you into a room you don't want to be in, so you have to start your trek all over again. The other thing is that sometimes luck hits on the first turn and a player knows one or two parts of the case, which isn't much fun for everyone else. I've never seen a one turn win, but I know it's possible.
What's to Like?
I write this with the disclaimer that Clue was and is still my favorite mass market game, I even went to a character night as Mr. Boody, it was easy, white dress shirt, black bow tie, jacket, dress pants. But I digress.
Clue is the classic who done it game. Essentially it's a race to figure out who did it, what they used, and where the murder took place. Now, the fact that you don't know where the murder took place, yet you have a body is odd, as well as the fact that your character can be the murderer and you don't even know it. Those bits aside, it still is a reasonable deduction game.
I like the aspect of figuring out what's missing from the deck. You have to use the cards in your hand to help do that, but you have to be careful because everyone else hears your suspicions, meaning if something goes around the table with no response they know either you have those cards, or that is the set of mystery items. When I first played the game it was all about me figuring things out, but then I learned to pay attention to what everyone else was asking. I started to notice patterns with what people asked and I was eventually able to figure out what they had in their hand.
I won't go too much into the strategy behind clue, since that eliminates some of the fun. Also, my ideas are by no means perfect, but I do tend to win a fair bit. What I have noticed is that players spend most of their turns rolling dice and not making a room. I think an improvement to the game would be to make sure players could go to a room each turn. As the board is now, some rooms are much harder to get to, i.e. Kitchen, Billiard Room, and others are easy. The secret passageways do help movement, but it leads to clumping of characters. It's also annoying when someone suspects you, forcing you into a room you don't want to be in, so you have to start your trek all over again. The other thing is that sometimes luck hits on the first turn and a player knows one or two parts of the case, which isn't much fun for everyone else. I've never seen a one turn win, but I know it's possible.
What's to Like?
- Good introduction to deduction games
- Plays up to 6 people
- Simple rules
- Short playtime
- Luck with movement
- Too much luck in terms of guessing clues
- Location being determined by other players
Overall, I like Clue for what it is. There are better mystery games out there, which I'll get to in a moment, but Clue has a unique blend of fun and simplicity with a good logic challenge.
If you like Clue, but you're looking for a more in depth game, here's some options (with links to the Boardgamegeek pages).
- Code 777 - this is more of a logic game with numbers, but it also has deduction aspects.
- Mystery of the Abby - a clue-like game where the deduction comes from figuring out which Monk is missing by asking careful question. This is Out of Print, but worth playing if you have it or know someone who does.
- Mystery Express - the game that replaced MoaB in DOW catalog. It takes the what's missing and twists it so there are two copies of each card, and players have to figure out which card exists only once in each category. It's not perfect, but it is fun every once in awhile.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Words Words Words OR Scrabble and Other Word Games
I haven't played many games of Scrabble, but you wanted my take on things, so here it is. I find Scrabble challenging, I don't find too many flaws with the game, but I don't like it. I think that there's two problems with word games in general - one, the biggest vocabulary always wins, and two, there's virtually no luck, or all luck based on the tiles. Now, don't get me wrong, Scrabble is a good game. The board is interesting in terms of the various tiles, but it boils down to who knows the most before the game. To me, that's not much of a game when all players don't have a reasonably equal chance to win.
Boggle is a step in the right direction, since it removes the luck of tile draws, thus giving every player equal access to words, but the main problem still remains. The person who knows the most words will once again win.
I do find challenge in word games when it's timed to see how many I can get in a given period. The problem is that these are best suited for computer games, little social networking apps, and phone games, thus they are best as single player games. Even then, the experience is less than satisfying. Maybe it has to do with pure skill games and the way that players can get better than everyone else through practice or certain other means. If one person is always going to win the game, or almost alway win, what's the point in playing?
So the question becomes how do you improve Scrabble. Well, the first idea is make sure you play with people right around your vocabulary level. Sure, sometimes you'll know more words, sometimes others will, but that makes the game closer. Now, this isn't perfect since there's not a great way to quantify vocabulary knowledge. So what might help? How about a list of possible words, something like 30-50 words so players can play quickly even if they get stuck. I really don't have great solutions here.
Some other word games that might scratch the Scrabble itch, but do it in a more compact or fun way.
Word on the Street (Junior version as well)
It's a two player/team game where one team reads a category and the other side has to come up with a word that fits the category. They then spell the word moving each letter in the word one spot closer to their side. This causes people to come up with words using b's d's, g's, w's, etc. and stretches players vocabulary. It will favor the bigger vocabulary, but there are ways to win before that becomes an issue. It may not be the best alternative, but it's out there.
I don't know of any other word games, but I know they exist. If they don't, maybe it's a sign that the masses have given up their thesauruses in favor of simplistic language and that word games just aren't all that fun to play with the same group over and over again.
Boggle is a step in the right direction, since it removes the luck of tile draws, thus giving every player equal access to words, but the main problem still remains. The person who knows the most words will once again win.
I do find challenge in word games when it's timed to see how many I can get in a given period. The problem is that these are best suited for computer games, little social networking apps, and phone games, thus they are best as single player games. Even then, the experience is less than satisfying. Maybe it has to do with pure skill games and the way that players can get better than everyone else through practice or certain other means. If one person is always going to win the game, or almost alway win, what's the point in playing?
So the question becomes how do you improve Scrabble. Well, the first idea is make sure you play with people right around your vocabulary level. Sure, sometimes you'll know more words, sometimes others will, but that makes the game closer. Now, this isn't perfect since there's not a great way to quantify vocabulary knowledge. So what might help? How about a list of possible words, something like 30-50 words so players can play quickly even if they get stuck. I really don't have great solutions here.
Some other word games that might scratch the Scrabble itch, but do it in a more compact or fun way.
Word on the Street (Junior version as well)
It's a two player/team game where one team reads a category and the other side has to come up with a word that fits the category. They then spell the word moving each letter in the word one spot closer to their side. This causes people to come up with words using b's d's, g's, w's, etc. and stretches players vocabulary. It will favor the bigger vocabulary, but there are ways to win before that becomes an issue. It may not be the best alternative, but it's out there.
I don't know of any other word games, but I know they exist. If they don't, maybe it's a sign that the masses have given up their thesauruses in favor of simplistic language and that word games just aren't all that fun to play with the same group over and over again.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Mousetrap - It's a game? And a Bonus Review
Mousetrap: Part game, part construction project. When you boil down Mousetrap, you end up with a simple roll and move game, which is typical of most games in this series, but there's a bit more than that here. The fun part for most people was the creation of the full mouse trap, and watching something you built function. I think as a child, I probably played the actual game twice. I wanted to play by the full rules, I really did, but building and triggering the trap was always more fun.
I think Mousetrap is ultimately judged on the toy factor. It's a fairly simple game, with little choice, but it's a pretty fun toy. So, the question becomes how to make Mousetrap better. My answer, don't try. Play it as a toy, let the kids have fun with it, and when they're looking for better games, go elsewhere.
It's probably a cop-out to recommend the Adventurers again as a next step game but I think it works. You have a fair amount of the toy factor, but Adventurers combines the toys with a decent game.
BONKERS or SCORE!
Since that was relatively short, I'll give you a bonus micro review.
It's a Milton Bradley game from the 1978 called This Game is Bonkers or Bonkers for short. The object of the game is to get 12 scores, the first one to do this wins the game. So how do you score? There are 3 ways; 1st you can roll a 12, 2nd, you can land on the score spot, and 3rd, you can get caught in a loop. Now, this would be very simple, and take a very long time, but whenever you land on an empty spot, you can place a tile that tells you how to move. At first, this takes awhile, but eventually there are combos that lead you to scores. Also, if you land on a spot that someone else occupies, you get to roll again. This goes on until you land on an empty space after you've placed a tile, or until you "Go to Lose!" Every player is also given a token that allows them to send another player to Lose. Now, the fun part of this game is yelling "SCORE!" whenever someone scores a point, and sympathizing when someone goes to "LOSE."
Now, is this a great strategic game? No, not at all, But, it's a great way to start or end a game night. I know it's not in production anymore, but there are ebay copies, as well as thrift store and garage sale possibilities. It's a fun game with numbers, and if you approach to have fun rather than to win, you'll be glad you played it.
Also remember, it's the people that make things fun, appreciate those people who play games.
I think Mousetrap is ultimately judged on the toy factor. It's a fairly simple game, with little choice, but it's a pretty fun toy. So, the question becomes how to make Mousetrap better. My answer, don't try. Play it as a toy, let the kids have fun with it, and when they're looking for better games, go elsewhere.
It's probably a cop-out to recommend the Adventurers again as a next step game but I think it works. You have a fair amount of the toy factor, but Adventurers combines the toys with a decent game.
BONKERS or SCORE!
Since that was relatively short, I'll give you a bonus micro review.
It's a Milton Bradley game from the 1978 called This Game is Bonkers or Bonkers for short. The object of the game is to get 12 scores, the first one to do this wins the game. So how do you score? There are 3 ways; 1st you can roll a 12, 2nd, you can land on the score spot, and 3rd, you can get caught in a loop. Now, this would be very simple, and take a very long time, but whenever you land on an empty spot, you can place a tile that tells you how to move. At first, this takes awhile, but eventually there are combos that lead you to scores. Also, if you land on a spot that someone else occupies, you get to roll again. This goes on until you land on an empty space after you've placed a tile, or until you "Go to Lose!" Every player is also given a token that allows them to send another player to Lose. Now, the fun part of this game is yelling "SCORE!" whenever someone scores a point, and sympathizing when someone goes to "LOSE." 
Now, is this a great strategic game? No, not at all, But, it's a great way to start or end a game night. I know it's not in production anymore, but there are ebay copies, as well as thrift store and garage sale possibilities. It's a fun game with numbers, and if you approach to have fun rather than to win, you'll be glad you played it.
Also remember, it's the people that make things fun, appreciate those people who play games.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Dice Dice and More Dice OR How Beginner's Luck is Personified
Yahtzee
So first, Yahtzee is probably my second most played game due to having a handheld version which gets a lot of play time. Also, I took an initial liking to the game by rolling all 6's on my first ever roll, which I know no one will believe but hey it happened. Those are my personal biases coming in.
There are many things to like in Yahtzee. First, DICE, and lots of rolling. I know that I loved dice early on. It appealed to my love of numbers, but it was also fun to take the dice and see what could be done with them. Secondly, having limited options with what to do with the dice make you plan ahead and also react to the rolls you get. Finally, who doesn't love shouting YAHTZEE!? I mean really, it's just fun to get into the game.
Yahtzee is not without it's problems. As much as I like the diminishing choices, it also makes it not a very good game. It would be better if there were limited choices early and you had to unlock further scoring opportunities as you went. Also, there's not a game beyond the dice rolling, so ultimately the game comes down to luck of the roll. It would be great to see some special power awarded for completing that large straight, or full house.
Yes, I know that Yahtzee would be a completely different game with those things, and it probably exists. I still enjoy playing Yahtzee as is, but that's on the handheld which is just me, so a game takes about 5 minutes. I'm not sure I'd want to get out a specific game of Yahtzee, or even 5 dice and some paper to play. Simply put, there are better dice games out there.
On a random note, the theoretical maximum score is 1540, something I've never even gotten close to half way; though I consider a 630 game pretty good.
Here's some ideas for random dice games
This is not an inclusive list, so if you have any dice games you enjoy, leave a comment and I'll edit the main post to include them.
Also, don't forget to enter the contest, see the previous post, and vote in the poll.
So first, Yahtzee is probably my second most played game due to having a handheld version which gets a lot of play time. Also, I took an initial liking to the game by rolling all 6's on my first ever roll, which I know no one will believe but hey it happened. Those are my personal biases coming in.
There are many things to like in Yahtzee. First, DICE, and lots of rolling. I know that I loved dice early on. It appealed to my love of numbers, but it was also fun to take the dice and see what could be done with them. Secondly, having limited options with what to do with the dice make you plan ahead and also react to the rolls you get. Finally, who doesn't love shouting YAHTZEE!? I mean really, it's just fun to get into the game.
Yahtzee is not without it's problems. As much as I like the diminishing choices, it also makes it not a very good game. It would be better if there were limited choices early and you had to unlock further scoring opportunities as you went. Also, there's not a game beyond the dice rolling, so ultimately the game comes down to luck of the roll. It would be great to see some special power awarded for completing that large straight, or full house.
Yes, I know that Yahtzee would be a completely different game with those things, and it probably exists. I still enjoy playing Yahtzee as is, but that's on the handheld which is just me, so a game takes about 5 minutes. I'm not sure I'd want to get out a specific game of Yahtzee, or even 5 dice and some paper to play. Simply put, there are better dice games out there.
On a random note, the theoretical maximum score is 1540, something I've never even gotten close to half way; though I consider a 630 game pretty good.
Here's some ideas for random dice games
- Liar's Dice
- Decathlon, a fun game using different Decathlon events. Requires 8 dice and a pencil to play
- Delve, an adventure style game, meaning 4 heros go on a journey, meet bad guys, get stuff, etc. I've played this and it's a tough game, but fun and plays in about 30 minutes.
This is not an inclusive list, so if you have any dice games you enjoy, leave a comment and I'll edit the main post to include them.
Also, don't forget to enter the contest, see the previous post, and vote in the poll.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Free Parking is not a Windfall, OR How to Actually Pass Go and Collect $200
I'm starting off the year with a large dose of irony. Yes, that's right, we're talking about Monopoly today, which you probably guessed from the title. If you read my history sections, you'll know that I played a fair bit of Monopoly growing up. So much that between the ages of 7 and 15 it was probably my favorite game. Risk came in there a bit, but overall Monopoly was a classic.
Obviously, a game that is as widespread as Monopoly has to have something going for it. I think it does at least. First off, you've got property collection and trading, two fun concepts which make the game work. Secondly, dice. Seriously, if you don't like rolling dice, go talk to your doctor, I'll wait for you. That whole notion of rolling again on doubles, but if you do it 3 times in a row you're in trouble has a fun push your luck aspect.
Now, that's about where Monopoly stops being fun. You go around, get properties, that much is fun, then no one has a set and trading must ensue, but no one wants to give you a monopoly. This causes games to go into the 2,3,4,5, even 6 hour mark, at which point people stop caring, not to mention half the people you started playing with have been eliminated and are off doing their own thing. I hold that if Monopoly is played firstly by the rules, and then as a cut-throat economic game, which I'll explain what I mean by that in a moment, then games take less time and people have more fun. First, by the real rules. FREE PARKING IS NOT A WINDFALL SPOT! It's a nothing spot. No extra money, no $50 or $500 from the bank all the time. Secondly, auction off properties if the person who lands on it doesn't buy it. It keeps things moving and gets money out of the game which is the whole point. Now, what I mean by cut-throat economic game. Trade with your opponents, but if you give them property, make them pay for it. Go ahead give them the monopoly they want, but make them pay way over the list price for it, that way they don't have the money for houses and hotels. When you want a property, offer them a good deal, remember, you want it more than they do, so be willing to pay for it.
Remember, the goal of Monopoly is to bankrupt all the other players, so don't try to be nice and charge less, or give out loans. Just take the money and run.
Now, if you were like me and enjoyed Monopoly growing up, or even if you still do(I do by the way, it's just not ever my game of choice, though it is fun with the right people) take a look at two different games. The first is Acquire. It's an older game, first published in the 60's, but it's been through a bunch of editions and printings. It's a game about stocks in hotel chains and mergers. It doesn't have dice, but it is still fun. The second game to look at is Settlers of Catan. You get to roll dice - Yay! and the dice yield resources to you some of the time, but not all, much like Monopoly. Catan has a lot of trading, so much that you probably can't win the game without trading to your opponents every so often. The great part about both of these games, the playtime is a pretty controlled 1-2 hours. Also Catan can now be found in Toys R Us and Target stores in the US. Perhaps a nice way to use one of those giftcards you got for the holidays this year.
P.S. Do we really need 300 different versions of Monopoly? Sure it's fine that they exist, but please try to keep it to 1 or 2 versions, 4 if absolutely necessary.
Yes this does follow the rules, except for auctions, but that's ok. The point is, the game can end quickly. Though, do not try this at home.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
I Don't Think We're in Candyland Anymore
It occurred to me, with the help of a loyal reader's reference to this blog, that I don't talk about games in the mass market. That mostly has to do with not playing them much, still, for many of us, these are the types of games we grew up playing. I'm talking Candyland, Monopoly, Clue, Risk, Battleship, Life, and many others in that genre. Let me state that it is not my intention to shred these games to pieces, but rather to extol their virtues, discuss their shortcomings, and offer some tweaks for a more enjoyable gaming experience, as well as other games that might be in the same vein.
With those guidelines in place, I give you the first in a series aimed to provide a better game based on something you probably played as a child. I also welcome a suggestion for further games in this series of discussions.
I Don't Think We're in Candyland Anymore OR How to Avoid Plumpy and Hope to See Queen Frostine
Our journey begins in a land of candy with children venturing through the woods to grandmother's house, or, something along those lines. I admit, I enjoyed Candyland as a young child. My mom, my sister and I would play but it usually left me wanting more out of the game. That's when I realized that I wasn't really playing Candyland as much as Candyland was playing itself.
Candyland is little more than a color matching game, and even that is being generous. You draw a card and move to the next square of that color. The problem with that mechanic is that the player has absolutely no choice. Think about how many times you've been squares away from victory only to be sent back to the near start with little to no chance of winning. Simply put, it doesn't make the game fun for most people over the age of 7. I won't go as far as saying that this is a horrible game, but we can do better.
How about a simple tweak that forces players to make a choice? Perhaps draw 2, choose 1 to play, and then either discard the other card, or keep it in hand so the next time you draw one card to make a two card hand, and then choose one to play. This gives players a little bit of strategic possibilities while maintaining the essence of the game. For the older gamer, perhaps allow them to play a card on someone else, rather than move their own piece. I haven't tried either of these suggestions, but I think at least the first has something to it, while the second might be a bit too much of a departure from what the game was intended to do.
In summary, Candyland itself is not a good game for older kids, but it does provide a great learning tool for children to match colors and play a game by the rules. Eric Summerer of DiceTower fame recently talked about playing this with his son who actually played by the rules for the first time ever. That itself speaks to the accessibility of Candyland. It's a fun theme, but ultimately the game falls flat.
If you or your children do enjoy Candyland, give The Adventurers a look. I'll be reviewing it sometime soon, hopefully January 2012. It follows the idea of moving along a path, but has a lot of choices to be made by the players.
I hope you enjoyed this discussion on Candyland and how things could be better. Next week look for Do We Really Need 200 Versions of Monopoly? OR It's Free Parking, not collect $10,000.
With those guidelines in place, I give you the first in a series aimed to provide a better game based on something you probably played as a child. I also welcome a suggestion for further games in this series of discussions.
I Don't Think We're in Candyland Anymore OR How to Avoid Plumpy and Hope to See Queen Frostine
Our journey begins in a land of candy with children venturing through the woods to grandmother's house, or, something along those lines. I admit, I enjoyed Candyland as a young child. My mom, my sister and I would play but it usually left me wanting more out of the game. That's when I realized that I wasn't really playing Candyland as much as Candyland was playing itself.
Candyland is little more than a color matching game, and even that is being generous. You draw a card and move to the next square of that color. The problem with that mechanic is that the player has absolutely no choice. Think about how many times you've been squares away from victory only to be sent back to the near start with little to no chance of winning. Simply put, it doesn't make the game fun for most people over the age of 7. I won't go as far as saying that this is a horrible game, but we can do better.
How about a simple tweak that forces players to make a choice? Perhaps draw 2, choose 1 to play, and then either discard the other card, or keep it in hand so the next time you draw one card to make a two card hand, and then choose one to play. This gives players a little bit of strategic possibilities while maintaining the essence of the game. For the older gamer, perhaps allow them to play a card on someone else, rather than move their own piece. I haven't tried either of these suggestions, but I think at least the first has something to it, while the second might be a bit too much of a departure from what the game was intended to do.
In summary, Candyland itself is not a good game for older kids, but it does provide a great learning tool for children to match colors and play a game by the rules. Eric Summerer of DiceTower fame recently talked about playing this with his son who actually played by the rules for the first time ever. That itself speaks to the accessibility of Candyland. It's a fun theme, but ultimately the game falls flat.
If you or your children do enjoy Candyland, give The Adventurers a look. I'll be reviewing it sometime soon, hopefully January 2012. It follows the idea of moving along a path, but has a lot of choices to be made by the players.
I hope you enjoyed this discussion on Candyland and how things could be better. Next week look for Do We Really Need 200 Versions of Monopoly? OR It's Free Parking, not collect $10,000.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)