Card driven games....food for thought
Check out this interesting post in Chris Farrell's blog. For those who have been discussing GMT's Twilight Struggle and its cards. Can't add much since I haven't played any of GMT's CDG's, but thought I would share this.
posted by Rob @ 7:38 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Thank you for the very interesting cross posting. As one who is rapidly building a small CDG collection, it's nice to read this type of analysis.
Sometimes though I wonder if portions of our hobby suffer from a bit of over-analysis. I mean... gosh, these are just games after all. If you like the theme of a game, enjoy the experience, like moving the pretty bits, and forget about all the stress in your life for a few hours while playing, haven't you received at least $40 pleasure out of the game?
I posted my response here
I've never been very keen on that line of logic, Ben. Sure some movies can distract you from reality and feed you a steady dose of action for a few hours...But what films do we hold dear and keep on the shelf? -Certainly not the Bruckheimers, I hope.
Developing tastes and analysis are part of growth and should be encouraged. If the envelope wasn't being pushed and the subject studied, then we wouldn't have 90% of the very games we enjoy so much today.
In short, I'm a huge proponent of originality and creativity. Perhaps that might even explain my wild tastes in games...
By the way, this crazy letter verification thing plays hell with my dyslexia...takes me a good two or three tries to post anything...cplx--y-erm, is that a j? Argh!
I agree there is merit in discerning the wheat from the chaff in board games... I guess I'm just more interested in playing and enjoying rather than breaking the design intricacies of each down into its component molecules.
However, if somehow all the analysis results in the ultimate game being conceived, developed, and published, play on! I'll be the first of the hungry masses in line to buy it and play the heck out of it.
Personally, I love this kind of analysis. I love analyzing any type of complex system: differential equations, engine experiments, games.
I think that's a big part of the draw with games.
I agree with Ben that there's a lot of it (for example the myriad statistical analysis of the BGG ratings). I don't think it's a problem. I think it's a natural outgrowth of the "gamer personality." We love to analyze.
For me, realistically, it's large fraction of the fun. I'm sure I spend more time anlayzing games than actually playing them.
I am bit in the middle again in this...
I agree to a large extent with what Ben says. To me, Monday night gaming is just a way to disconnect myself from the stress of everyday life. It's a few hours that I dedicate to inmerse myself in fantasy worlds and cool challenges. I go more for the socializing with guys who enjoy the same hobby than to dissect a game down to quarks and leptons. I don't have much time to dedicate to this hobby, so I focus more on this aspect of it. To me, it's like my "guy's night out".
Now to say that I abhor the analysing of them would be a lie. After all, as some of you know, I'm playtesting for Columbia Games. But even so, I have my limit. I can't let it take up all of my free and gaming time.
My free time has to also be divided up with guitar-playing, golfing, and working out at the gym.
After thinking about this for a day or so... I found myself continuing to analyze the insight provided by the various CDG posts... Hmmm... I guess I do enjoy this type of analysis after all! :) Why else would I be listening to so many board game podcasts and reading so many blogs?
Anyway, my take on the number of optimal cards for a game has previously always been "more is better," thinking more cards = more replayability = more fun. Good examples of this school of thought are Runebound and Duel of Ages (both border on a ridiculous amount of cards in each deck). For a tighter, more elegant system such as a card-driven wargame, perhaps a more statistical approach is warranted...
Post a Comment
<< Home