Molten Boron: Games Archives

January 11, 2008

Slavery and Violence in Gaming

Today, on the recommendation of a friend of mine, I purchased Struggles of Empires. As often happens when a game comes highly recommended, I bought it with only a vague idea of what it was about. I knew that it was a strategy board game that broadly dealt with the European powers during the age of imperialism.

I opened the box up when I got home and read the rules. It turns out that the game simulates the wars and power struggles that occurred between seven European powers during the Eighteenth Century. One of the major components of the game is the fight for colonies throughout Asia, Africa, and the Americas.

Enslavement is an integral part of the game.

I don't mean this in an abstract way, like how in Puerto Rico you're importing "colonists" to work on your plantations, who happen to be represented by little brown discs. I mean that enslaving is something that you can (and, to be successful, should) choose to do. The game is played over a series of rounds, and on a player's turn he or she may choose among the following actions: Pass, Buy a Tile, Build an Army Unit, Move Units, Launch an Attack, Colonize, or Enslave.

This raises a lot of interesting points to thinkg about. To start: by being as open about slavery as Struggles of Empires is, is it, in a way, better and more honest about slavery than other, similar games? I've played plenty of Age of Imperialism simulation games, but all of them heretofore have politely skirted around the slavery issue. I mentioned Puerto Rico. Is it better to play a game where you import "colonists," or to play the same game, with the same theme, where you are being honest and importing slaves?

But there's another issue I'm somewhat more interested in. Every time the manual for the game mentioned enslavement I got skeezed out. I'll have a tough time playing this with people because the idea of playing someone who consciously chooses to enslave others is really discomfiting to me.

Why should this be? I think it helps to draw a comparison to video games. I can pick up a first person shooter and kill others without a moment's hesitation. Why do I not have a problem playing violent video games, while I do have a problem playing a board game where I enslave others?

One possible explanation is that violence and killing can be justified, under some circumstances, while I can't really conceive of a justification for slavery. I suppose, but it's not enough that violence can be justified, it also matters whether specific violence is justified. In most video games it is; you're a soldier in war time, you're killing in self defence, etc. But it isn't always. I will confess to having played Grand Theft Auto games without much in the way of moral pangs, and there's essentially no attempt to justify the violence in those games. I don't think justifiability is enough.

Is it desensitization? I think that's another big element. I've seen a lot of violence depicted in various media, and have myself controlled the violence in video games. But there aren't a huge number of depictions of slavery to begin with, and what depictions there are all tend to be couched in a narrative that indicates the indisputable evil of the institution. Moreover, there simply aren't a lot of opportunities to simulate slavery. As mentioned above, the subject is generally skirted in board games, and there aren't a lot of slave master simulation video games, thankfully.

I also wonder if, in a more general sense, I think of enslavement as a worse crime than murder. Part of this ties into the justifiability issue; there's never a good reason to enslave another. Maybe it's also a personal love of liberty. I'm not sure, if asked to make a choice, whether I would rather be dead or a slave, but I think I might rather choose death.

Posted by Zach at 03:25 AM | Comments (0)

May 06, 2007

A Genealogy of Gamers

I found this interesting post via Kotaku. It's an attempt to classify gamers and gaming styles into different types. The author, Christ Bateman, identifies nine types of gamers, but allows that the list is only tentative and could expand or contract. Further, he implies in his self-description at the end that the categories are not intended to be exclusive and that gamers can be classified as hybrid types.

I find the list fascinating, and am now inclined to read up on some of the theoretical material that he mentions at the start of the article and that I didn't really understand. Some of the categories definitely struck a chord with me as accurate descriptions of the way I approach certain games, while others that didn't necessarily describe what I experience echoed the sentiments I've heard from others in describing games.

What I find most interesting is that, while I would describe myself as a hybrid of several of the player types, I seldom think of myself as fitting more than one type for any given game. Thus, certain strategy and RPG games I will play as a Manager, where I'm less interested in the game itself than I am in the way that the game is constructed. But other RPGs, particularly Final Fantasy and similar Japanese RPGs, I experience as a Wanderer. When I play those games I'm more interested in the plot than I am in the actual gameplay, which I tend to view as an inconvenience on the road to more plot.

My experience with Final Fantasy X is a good example of two different way of approaching the same game. As you know, Bob, modern Final Fantasy games tend to be rigidly linear until the very end, at which point a vast array of entirely optional side-quests open up. At this point you have two options: Spend 100 hours trying to force your way through the final dungeon and complete the game with a barely-powerful-enough party, or spend 100 hours playing underwater soccer and hunting for treasures on giant chickens, thereby acquiring skills that make your party so powerful that it can blast through the final dungeon in minutes.

When I reached the end of Final Fantasy X I was primarily interested in seeing the end of the story. Thus, in the hopes that I would get lucky and break through that last boss without spending hours on underwater soccer, I tried to muscle through the last boss without any side questing. It took about a dozen attempts, but eventually I got lucky and finished the game. Some time thereafter my roommate played through FFX. He got to the end game and immediately started in on all the side quests, the soccer, the arena battles, the optional bosses that are 100 times more powerful than the final boss, the insane game where you have to dodge random lightning bolts 100 times in a row. Eventually he got everything, maxed out all of the characters, beat every optional boss... and quit. He never went through the motions of actually finishing the game, even though the ultimate battle of good versus evil would have only lasted two hits: Him hitting the boss and the boss hitting the floor. For him, the plot was entirely inconsequential. The meat of the game was the actual gameplay and the collecting element at the end.

What I really like about this article is that it puts into words something I've noticed before but never really articulated: the variety of ways that different players interact with a game. What's always struck me as interesting is the way that two people, similar enough to like video games and even similar enough to like the same game, can like that game for entirely different reasons and can approach it from opposite angles. When I played FFX I played it in Wanderer mode; my roommate played it in Hoarder mode.

What's also fascinating is that not only does a given game trigger different play styles in different players, but that the same player might have different play styles activated by different games. Building on my example: I enjoyed FFX as a Wanderer while my roommate enjoyed it as a Hoarder. But it wouldn't be accurate to say that that's because I AM a Wanderer and he IS a Hoarder. When I played through Zelda: Twilight Princess I became obsessed with completion, to the point where I finished the 100-level bonus dungeon in order to get a power-up that I didn't really need to finish the game. For whatever reason Zelda triggered my Hoarder type, where Final Fantasy X triggered my Wanderer type.

It would be interesting to see, if you had a gestalt game that can be reasonably approached from different angles, if it is possible to step back, recognize the different angles, and force yourself to make a gestalt switch. Could I go back and play FFX and appreciate it as a Hoarder? Can I dynamically alter my experience of a game as I'm playing it? Could I, for instance, play half-way through Xenosaga and then say to myself, "Well, this plot is utterly vapid. I'll resolve to go make myself a sandwich while the players talk and focus exclusively on the character development/collection aspects of the game" and turn it from a bad Wanderer experience into a good Hoarder experience?

In terms of how I would describe myself according to the types listed, I would say I'm mostly a Wanderer or Manager. I occasionally have my Hoarding instincts awoken by just the right game, and I also tend to unfortunately Hoardish tendences when playing Real Time Strategy games. Certain puzzle games put me in Zoner mode, as well as some side-scrolling shooters like Gradius V. Interestingly, while I tend not to be a Conqueror generally I enter that mode when I play old video games. Perhaps I'm reverting to a previous type that I identify with the games of my childhood. Finally, while the list is focused on video gamers I find that I'm a Participant when it comes to board games. I'm less interested in winning board games than I am in being around people who are enjoying a game.

Posted by Zach at 09:44 PM | Comments (0)

February 18, 2007

Ludology

I have a pseudo-philosophical question: what makes something a Game? That is, for a given set of activities what criteria would you use to distinguish whether those activities are a Game or Not A Game?

Let me start by narrowing the discussion so as to eliminate sophistry. First, I'm not looking for a hard-and-fast single criteria the presence of which makes something a Game and the absence of which makes something Not A Game. I'm willing to say from the beginning that there are probably multiple elements that create Gameness, and that something we call a Game may not have all of them, and another thing we call Not A Game may have some of them. Similarly, I'm not interested in the Sorites Paradox. I'm willing to accept shades of gray and don't care to have a discussion about how much of Criterion X something has to have before it has a binary switch from Not A Game to Game.

What I am interested in are what criteria we would use to distinguish a Game from something that isn't a game. Multiple people playing the game? Play over a limited time with a defined endpoint? Winners and Losers? Rules? Some means of measuring the quality of a player's performance? Conflict?

The question get more interesting the more I think about it, because while a lot of criteria go into a game there are some that seem more important than others and there's also a sense in which the absense of one of the criteria can be compensated for by the presence of another. Example: Solitaire. Solitaire lacks multiple players, yet it's still what we'd call a game. A player sorting through a deck of cards and organizing cards by suit and rank value would not be playing a game, as far as most people are concerned. But a player who is trying to accomplish that same goal by following certain strict rules regulating card placement is said to be playing a game.

I would say that, as a criterion, Multiple Players is very weak. It isn't sufficient (Any number of activities can involve multiple people without being called a Game) and it isn't necessary (solitaire, numerous video games, etc.). Still, it's a sort of buttress to something's gameness; I would say I'm vaguely more likely to want to call something a Game if it involves multiple people than I am if it doesn't. Rules of conduct I would call a more important criterion; it's hard to think of anything we would call a game that doesn't involves some form of rules (even things like Fluxx, Mini-Mao and 1000 Blank White Cards offer a basic structure of rules to order play even as they allow extraordinary fluidity in terms of the creation of new rules). At the same time, rules can't be enough on their own because there are a lot of things that have rules but that we would never call games. Winning/Losing/Measurement of Performance strikes me as another important aspect of gameness, though I'd allow that you can have something that's a game without it.

Thoughts? Additional criteria? And here's a question: Right now I'm having a difficult time with the example of trials at law. That is, a trial has strict rules, multiple players, hard-and-fast winners and losers, competition, and it occurs over a strictly defined period with an end point (it might be a long time coming, but all trials end eventually). So why isn't a trial a game?

Posted by Zach at 09:16 PM | Comments (0)

January 27, 2007

Oh, shit.

I just lost The Game.

Posted by Zach at 04:29 AM | Comments (3)

December 17, 2006

Slow-motion Disaster

Right now there's an eBay listing for an incredible bundle of video game consoles, games, and peripherals. The entry is here. It includes a brand new, unopened Playstation 3, an XBox 360, an XBOx, a GameCube, a Dreamcast, a PS1, a Nintendo 64, a Super Nintendo, an NES, two Nintendo DSes (both DS Phat and DS Lite), a PSP, two GBAs (regular and SP), a Game Boy Pocket, a Game Boy Color, a Game Boy Printer, a Sega Game Gear, a Neo Geo Pocket, and a Virtual Boy. It also includes a rather large inventory of games for each of those systems. The bidding starts at $25,000, and if you purchase it for the Buy It New price of $75,000 he'll throw in a brand-new Wii.

This collection is the result of a lifetime of video gaming on the sellers part. So why is he unloading it? "Well, the only reason I'm considering selling this collection is to have enough money to buy my girlfriend of 3 years the engagement ring she deserves this Holiday. I hope to surprise her on Christmas Day with the perfect ring and proposal (and having some extra money to help pay for the wedding wouldn't hurt either). So really, when you think about it, not only are you getting so many videogames ... but you're also investing in a love that will flourish for a lifetime."

Wow. I mean, that certainly dedication, but this seems like a really... unwise choice to make. I could understand cleaning out your collection of games you don't like much or don't play anymore to raise some money. But this is selling off his entire hobby, that he's been engaged in for probably about 20 years. Still, I can see it being rational to cut off all ties to video gaming if he'a taken a look at things, decided he really has completely lost interest in video games, and is certain he's not going to regain it again.

But the circumstantial evidence makes me really doubt that that has happened. Look at what's on offer. The Playstation 3 is noted as unopened. The XBox 360 is not. The 360 came out last Christmas, so he was in the market for (expensive) new consoles within the last year. He also bought the $500 version of the 360, the choice of the more hardcore gamer. And he's offering 16 360 games in the lot, including Gears of War, which came out only about a month ago. Unless he bought GoW exclusively to sweeten the pot for this sale (which seems unlikely, given the magnitude of the collection), that means he was still very much into video games as of a month ago at the earliest. So his decision to expunge the hobby from his life seems to have come quite recently.

Needless to say, I think this is all a very bad idea, and not just from the perspective of a video game player. Making a sacrifice for your significant other can be fine, but making an enormous, outsized sacrifice for your significant other could lead to a lot of resentment down the line. What happens after Christmas, after the glow from the incredibly selfless gift that he made has worn off and life continues with his fiancee (and, eventually, wife)? What happens when he wakes up and realizes that perhaps he wasn't ready to give up on video games after all? I obviously don't know him, and don't know how he'll react, but it seems like there'd be a high probability of getting extremely resentful over it. There would, I think, be a great tendency to link the marriage and the fiancee to the loss of video games, and to place her as being responsible for it.

I obviously don't know him, don't know her, don't know anything about their relationship. For all I know, this is a very smart and mature move to make and will lead only to happiness down the line. Still, I would argue that in general one should be cautious about making large, possibly unneccessary sacrifices in the name of romantic gestures.

Posted by Zach at 12:30 AM | Comments (0)

December 14, 2006

December 11, 2006

Grumble Grumble

The Virtual Console is one of the more insidious features of the Nintendo Wii (about which I will post more once I no longer have 5 finals to take in the span of a week and a half). The VC, as it is known on the street, is a very sophisticated complex of emulators built into the firmware of the Wii, coupled with user-friendly front-end for purchasing and downloading content from Nintendo.

Which is to say: The Wii can play absolutely perfect renditions of games for the NES, the SNES, the N64, the Sega Genesis, and the TurboGrafx16. You can purchase games for the Virtual Console through Nintendo's on-line store, which you access directly from your Wii. You easily click through a couple of menus, select a game, and download it to your system. From them on, the game is available right on the front page when you boot up the Wii; no need to insert or remove discs, just turn on the Wii, point to the game you want to play, hit the A button, and suddenly you're playing a rendition of the game that is essentially indistinguishable from playing the game on the original console. The only way it differs from the original experience is that, first, you'll be playing on a Wii-compatible controller (the Wii remote, the Wii classic controller (looks like an SNES pad with a pair of analog sticks on the bottom), or a Gamecube controller) and second the graphics have been altered to actually work on a modern television set. If you've tried hooking up an old console to an HDTV (and who among us hasn't?) you'll discover that the results are quite gruesome. VC-emulated games are modified to look the same on a High Definition television as they did on an analog TV coming out of the original console. So, the only alterations are designed to make the experience more authentic than it would be with direct emulation.

What's insidious about the system is that you now have a library of classic games available through your Wii, ready to be purchased at any time, day or night. You can wake up at 3 in the morning, decide you feel like playing Mario 64, stagger to the living room in your underpants, and five minutes later (and $10 poorer), you can be playing the game. Normally, when making a purchse, you're faced with a trade-off between physical effort and instant gratification. If you want a game/book/whatever right now, you have to throw on clothes and trek to a store during normal business hours. If you want the convenience of internet shopping, you have to wait for the item to ship to you. The VC provides easy access and instant gratification. The only reason I still have money for rent is that the library is currently fairly modest; only 25 games are available, and not many of them are A-grade. Still, Nintendo has promised to add at least 4 new games for download every Monday at noon, and thus far they've kept that promise. By this time next year, the Virtual Console will have at least 200 games available for download.

With this as background, Friday night at 4 AM I found myself entering my credit card number into the Wii to purchase $20-worth of games. The next day I found myself at the post office shipping a package, only to discover that my credit card no longer resided in my wallet. Apparently I'd left it in the living room after making my purchase, even though I explicitly told myself to remember to put it back as I took it out the night before.

I spent the last couple of hours scouring my room and the living room for my card, but no success so far. Unfortunately, between when I lost it and when I began searching for it in earnest both my roommate and I have independently taken stabs at cleaning up the living room. I haven't seen my roommate since he did his part of the clean-up, so I haven't been able to ask if he saw the card and put it anywhere. I just hope that neither of us unwittingly threw it out.

It isn't the end of the world; I still have my debit card, and prefer to pay in cash in any case. One practicaly upshot, though: So long as I don't have my credit card, I can't blow any more money on Virtual Console games.

Posted by Zach at 07:54 PM | Comments (0)

October 26, 2006

Civilized

For those who have heard good things about the computer game Civilization, but who have heretofore held out on purchasing a copy for themselves, perhaps bewildered by the variety of Civilization options available, a fantastic opportunity has presented itself. The set includes Civilizations I through IV, plus all the expansions released for Civilizations II and III. Moreover, Chronicles comes with a book detailing the design process and evolution of the Civilization series, a DVD on the making of Civilization IV, and (and this may be the greatest pack-in bonus I have ever seen in a video game) a complete 250-card table top Civilization card game.

This is a product that I profoundly do not need. See the list of Civilization titles along the right side of the screen? I purchased every single one of them. And each one was bought at or near the release date, at full retail price. And I still have all of them, sitting here next to me in the drawer of my desk. And yet the fullness, the totality of this collection compells me to purchase it. And the card game! My God, the card game!

Though actually, the collection isn't entirely complete. There's an expansion that was just released for Civilization IV that isn't included. I'm very, very tempted to buy said expansion, which would be entirely silly of me. You may recall that I was very excited about the release of Civ IV some months ago. And then I was oddly silent. This is because, unbeknownst to me, my poor laptop is too pathetic to run it. So Civ IV has sat, despondent, on my shelf. I periodically glance at it sheepishly, only to watch it roll its eyes and look away. I hang my head in shame at my poor computer's impotence. And now I'm considering buying an expansion to a game my computer won't run. But! Civ IV: Warlords has so many amazing features! With Warlords, now when you conquer an enemy nation rather than destroying them you'll have the option of making them your vassal state! The mere possibility of theoretically being able to advance my hypothetical Civ IV game with that capability is more than worth the $30 for the expansion, isn't it?

Posted by Zach at 12:28 AM | Comments (0)

June 03, 2006

Girls and Gaming

Just thought I'd point out this article, which does an excellent job of skewering every "Girls and Gaming" article you'll find on the internet and in video gaming publications.

Posted by Zach at 02:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 31, 2006

Gaming Pedagogy

Certain parties have recently mentioned in passing (not here) that they've run into some trouble learning and teaching board games. This is a fairly common problem when you play games that aren't part of the Shared American Board Game Heritage, be they Cheapass games, Steve Jackson games, or Euro games. The trouble is that you need to learn the rules, but often the rules are complex enough that it would take forever to sit and listen to the rules read out loud. Moreover, manuals are seldom the most lucid way of explaining how to play a game; what works best is to have someone explain the game in natural language, organized in a mannter that makes intuitive sense. The explainer can also use the board and components to give examples of how play works, making the learning process easier. This works best if the explainer has played the game before and thus has a good grasp on the mechanics. But sometimes you're playing a game that's new to everyone; in that case, what works best is to have the designated explainer read through the rules first, figure it out in a way that makes sense to him or her, and then have the explainer bring in everyone else to explain it in his or her own words.

Most of this advice comes from a fantastic article in The Games Journal, The Finer Points of Teaching Rules. The article draws on examples from Euro games, but the points made should be easy to apply outside of that context. Hopefully this will prove helpful in future boardgaming endeavors. Also, let me once again put in a pitch for board games as a fun and engaging social activity. There are small board game shops all over the country, and most will carry a wide selection of games for all age ranges (including adults), number of players, style of gameplay, and expense. Board games are a great way to have fun while socializing, and I'd urge everyone reading to give them a try.

Posted by Zach at 01:05 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 14, 2006

Consuming Conspicuously

And while I'm posting photos, here's one I took of my board game closet. As president of the Columbia Strategic Simulations Society, I am custodian to the club's treasure trove of games. I have carefully segregated the club's games from mine; club games on the top shelf, my games on the bottom. That's also why, if you look carefully, you'll notice two copies of Settlers of Catan.

Posted by Zach at 06:39 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 09, 2006

Sony Makes an Interesting Business Decision

Some news from E3 while I take a break from the day's studying: Sony will be charging $500 for the PS3 base unit, which will be less powerful than the standard unit and do almost nothing. The price for the real edition will be $600. It will do nothing notably new, but will feature 1. slightly improvied graphics and 2. Sony's proprietary Blu-Ray discs. Blu-Ray discs are significant because they hold more data than a DVD, which would be important if there were any games currently being released that didn't fit on a single DVD, but there aren't. Blu-Ray discs are also proprietary Sony technology, so Sony will be able to take a larger chunk of the royalties.

Also, in response to universal hatred for the previously announced PS3 controller, Sony is making the PS3 controller exactly the same as the PS2 controller. But now it's wireless. And says "Playstation 3" instead of "Playstation 2." Also, because Nintendo's console had a good-looking idea with the built-in motion sensor, they installed a half-assed gyroscope in the controller at the last minute. No games are set to use it, but maybe they could in theory.

Also, the PS3 will look exactly like the PS2, but more curvy.

I hate to be the sort of person who predicts console failures on the basis of performance at E3, and Sony has displayed a remarkable ability to win every round of console generation that it competes in for no particularly good reason. Nonetheless, having bought a PS1 and a PS2, I really can't see myself buying a PS3. Now, the Nintendo Wii, that I'm excited about. I'm planning to make reservations to buy one from Nintendo World as soon as it comes out. I'll be waiting in line to buy it on the launch day.

And it'll be worth it when I get to be one of the first to play with my Wii.

Posted by Zach at 12:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 21, 2006

S.O.S.

I know there are a few people who read this who are into pen-and-paper RPGs, or who have at least dabbled in them. I just thought I'd pass along the news that Palladium Books, who make Rifts and Heroes Unlimited, among other game systems, is in serious danger of going under for good. It sounds like there was some malfeasance against the companies, some deals gone sour, and the profoundly unwise decision to put a lot of their eggs in the Nokia N-Gage basket.

I've never really done much with Palladium's products, but I know some people who do, and it's always a shame to lose a dedicated Role Playing Game company. I've considered buying some Rifts stuff in the past (due to my unhealthy obsession with world-building), and might pitch in for a book now that they're in need. Just thought I'd pass the news along for anyone who might be interested.

Posted by Zach at 12:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 01, 2006

The Ethicist: Board Game Edition

There's a board game I quite enjoy playing, The Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation. It's a quick two-player game that plays a lot like Stratego, but is a tad more complex and interesting. Fantasy Flight Games, the company that makes the game, was mostly focused on using the Lord of the Rings license for the main Lord of the Rings board game and War of the Ring, but in the height of excitement for the series that came with the new movies they released some throw-away games, like The Search and The Confrontation. They charged $50+ for the games they cared about, and around $20 for the throw-aways.

As it turned out, The Confrontation was, according to most strategy board game afficianados, a better game than the main Lord of the Rings game. The main game wasn't bad, but The Confrontation was better designed and more tightly constructed. Plus it was cheap. The company sold out of The Confrontation and, after several new printings, decided to release a new version: The Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation, Deluxe Edition. What distinguishes the Deluxe Edition from the standard edition? The box is larger (though the components are mostly the same size), making it less portable. There are a few additional components, but nothing to really change the game, just a few extra characters and an extra power card for each player. The main difference is that the Deluxe Edition costs $40, while the regular edition costs $20. Also, the Deluxe Edition is available for purchase, while the regular edition is out of print.

This led me to a quandary. I quite like The Confrontation, but I don't really like it $40-worth. But the original version is unavailable. Then I found Thought Hammer, a board game store based in Austin, Texas that has a great selection, very reasonable prices, and ships anywhere in the country. They still carried the standard edition, so I leapt on it and ordered a copy.

My order arrived today, and upon opening the box I discovered that they had sent the Deluxe Edition. I checked the manifest; they had listed the product code for the standard version. I checked the order that they e-mailed me. Still the standard version. I checked my bill. I'd only been charged for the standard edition, but I'd been given the Deluxe version.

So the question is, do I report this and possibly pay the extra money for the Deluxe version (I assume that, if they wanted to correct the mistake, they'd give me a choice of keeping and paying or exchanging for the standard edition, and at this point I'd rather just keep the Deluxe version and pay extra) or do I just take it as a windfall and stay quiet?

This actually reminds me of another ethical quandary that this game presented to me. It actually involves playing board games rather than buying them. I was playing The Confrontation with a friend. It was very friendly and nobody was taking the game seriously at all. We got to the end and were down to two pieces, and those pieces had gotten into a fight. My opponent had to choose one of seven cards to play, and I knew what cards she had. Six of those cards would result in me winning the battle and the game. If she played the other remaining card, however, she would escape the battle and set the pieces up in a way such that she would win and there would be nothing I could do about it. I saw what she could do to win, but she didn't. The game slowed down as she examined her options, read the card text, thought hard, and eventually said "I don't think there's anything I can do to win."

A further wrinkle: Based on the situation and her musings, it became apparent that she didn't quite understand how one of the pieces worked, and this was the key to the winning strategy. But if her mistake was pointed out, it would be functionally equivalent to telling her how to win. Bear in mind that she had played this game dozens of times before, and was in fact the game's owner, so not telling her the rules wouldn't have the character of picking on a newbie who had never played before.

So my question is: What is your obligation in these circumstances? It's a friendly game, no pressure. On the one hand, it's disingenuous and annoying to sit back and say nothing. On the other hand, it sort of defeats the point of a strategy board game if you're telling your opponent how to win. It's like explaining to your opponent how they can put you into checkmate in chess as you're playing the game. And then there's the complicating issue of the rules. I generally feel that with new players you're under an obligation to correct any mistakes about the rules and let them go back on foolish decisions that betray a lack of understanding of the game. But what if a more experienced player makes a mistake based on a misreading of a card, and you notice that they're making a mistake? Are you obliged to correct them, if it functionally means telling them "look at this rule more carefully: It will explain how to beat me?"

In the end, I took the middle ground of dropping vague hints and suggestions. "I think there's a way for you to win," that sort of thing. With respect to the rules, I told that she should "read the cards more closely." In the end, she didn't figure it out, made a bad decision, and I won. I felt bad about winning, though, and she seemed a bit annoyed. She tried to argue that we should call it a draw for the club record, and I agreed to that, but the President put it down as a win for me. It's not the end of the world or anything, she and I are still good friends. Nonetheless, I wonder if I could have handled it better. What do y'all think?

Posted by Zach at 01:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 28, 2006

Hell's No Game, Son

Here's something I didn't know existed until just recently: Christian knock-offs of strategy board games. I guess I don't quite get it. I understand Christian Rock; it's for parents who like the sound of rock, but who find rock lyrics to be counter to the Christian ethos. And it's useful to give to kids to distract them from real rock music. And I get Christian versions of games for very young children. They're good for education and such, Bible trivia, that sort of thing. But Christian strategy board games? Are they trying to shield their kids from the harsh and sinful world of... Carcassonne? Is building the french countryside too violent? And if it's for indoctrination purposes, this also seems off. By the time your kids are old enough for Settlers of Catan, they've probably outgrown games-centered-on-the-Bible-for-no-reason. Moreover, I don't imagine there's much knowledge-type education to be extracted from Settlers or Carcassonne. They're educational, sure, but in a skill-building strategic-thinking way, not in an assimilating-the-Bible way. Not that these don't look like fine games, they seem to have the designer's seal of approval, and they could pick worse games to rip off, but I just don't see the point.

Posted by Zach at 11:11 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

March 17, 2006

His Dork Materials

I had long been under the impression was a bit short on outlets for nerdly pursuits. Granted, there's the big Comic Convention every summer (Featuring the largest concentration of nerds in the Western Hemisphere!) but that feels more like an out-of-towner thing. The biggest comic store represented there is always Comic Relief, down from Berkeley, and both the retailers and the con-goers all seem to be disproportionately from outside the San Diego region. Near as I can tell San Diego has two dedicated board-game realtors, compared with, by my estimate, over half a dozen in the Bay Area (including two in Downtown Berkeley within blocks of each other).

It turns out, though, that I've been missing the dorkiness under my nose. There's actually a pretty fantastic gamestore on Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, just off the 805. It's called Game Empire and they have a pretty good selection: Eurogames from Carcassonne to Puerto Rico and everything between, smaller non-collectable card games, puzzle games, puzzles, a huge selection of RPG core books and supplements, table-top wargames, the ubiquitous Yu-gi-oh, and even a few American standards (Monopoly, Risk, etc.). They also have a pretty sizeable playing space.

Moreover, two doors down there's a big Science Fiction bookstore, Mysterious Universe (which had George R.R. Martin scheduled to come in for a signing). And in the next shopping center over there's a huge comic book store, ComicKaze. So after living in San Diego for 18 years, it's only as I'm returning for a brief visit that I discover what seems to be San Diego's principal dork enclave (A dorkclave?).

Anyhow, I wound up with copies of Power Grid and Ticket to Ride. Kelsey got some comic books. Now I just need to figure out how to cram two more boxes into my already-burgeoning luggage.

(And for those who care, Ticket to Ride and Power Grid are both highly recommended. Ticket to Ride's more of a fun family-type game. Moderate levels of strategy, a good deal of luck, though the luck factor isn't dominant. Easy to learn and fun to play. It accomodates 2-5 players and plays in about an hour (though the time can vary wildly). I'm almost never not in the mood for it (and if I'm not, it's usually because I just finished playing three games in a row). Power Grid's a bit tougher. The random element is pretty minimal and there's a lot of strategy involved. It combines bidding, resource management, and careful city selection. And it teaches basic economics while you play! When I sell it to people, I tell them that it's a really fun game that rewards careful budgeting, rational planning, and sensible development. Surprisingly few people take me up on the game, though. Power Grid also, in addition to requiring more strategy than Ticket to Ride, has a lot more rules. Each turn has multiple phases, and the whole game is played in 3 different parts, with the ground rules changing from part to part, so it's a bit heavy for the first-time player. But it's quite rewarding once you get into it, and can be played by 2-6 players in an hour and a half to two hours.)

Posted by Zach at 07:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 09, 2006

Wir Spielen ein Spiel

Several Spielen, in fact. A friend from the Columbia Strategic Simulations Society introduced me to a new website, SpielByWeb. It lets you play German board games on-line with other people. It's quite a nice set-up; the boards and pieces are attractively re-created, you can send messages to others in the game, you can leave notes to remind yourself what your plans are, and the system e-mails you when it's your turn. You click a link, take your turn, and you're done. There aren't a lot of games there, but the ones they have are quite fun.

I've taken the liberty of setting up a few games, if anyone's interested. I have games of Amun-Re, Reef Encounter, Tikal, and Wallenstein set up. You can get on-line rules for all but Tikal on the site. Go here for Tikal rules. Don't worry, the site's all in English, and I've only a passing familiarity with these games, so this isn't a set-up or anything. You'll have to register with the site, which is free and quick. I've set up the following games:

Wallenstein. Game: Law1. Password: Dip
Amun-Re. Game: Law2. Password: Dip
Tikal. Game: Law3. Password: Dip
Reef Encounter. Game: Law4. Password: Dip

The pace will be very relaxed and easy-going. No rush to finish your turns, just whenever you get a chance, and it won't be competitive at all. Come learn some new board games!

Posted by Zach at 09:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 14, 2005

Card Game Thing-Where-I-Talk-About-It: Gloom

This is a "Thing-Where-I-Talk-About-It" and not a review because I have not, technically, played this game yet, so I can't really review it. Still, that won't stop me talking about it.

I bought a card game from a game shop the other day called Gloom. It's released by Atlas Games, makers of various card games as well as the Ars Magica RPG series. The premise of the game is quite interesting. The idea is that you live in a culture that holds that life on earth is nothing but suffering and death. But: their vision of the afterlife is that the more you suffer in life, the richer your rewards in death. Hence, the game. You take control of one of four families. Your goal is to inflict the most misery possible on them before killing them off. Once everyone's dead, the family with the lowest total self-worth score wins.

The game play seems fairly simple. Everyone starts with five characters. You draw a hand of five cards to start, then the player who has had the worst day begins. Each turn consists of three phases. You start with the first play phase, in which you may play any one card from your hand or discard a card. This is followed by the second play phase, when you may play another card subject to the rule that you can't play an Untimely Death card. Finally comes the draw phase, in which you draw enough cards to put yourself back up to five. Play then passes to the left.

There are only four types of cards. The first type are Character cards, which everyone has five of and are layed out at the start of play. You play your Modifier and Untimely Death cards on the characters. Modifier Cards represent things that happen to your character which alter their self-worth. These are things like "Mocked by Midgets" or "Galled by Gangrene." They can be either negative or positive, and you may play them on either your characters or your opponents'. The interesting thing is that most of these cards have associated penalties and advantages, like skipping your draw phase or getting an extra turn. The trick is that the penalties are on the cards with negative modifiers, the ones you want, while advantages are on positive modifier cards. So you're constantly shooting yourself in the foot to get ahead. There are also Event cards, which let you do random special things, like "A Tragic Misunderstanding," which allows you to swap the modifier cards on two living characters. Finally, there are Untimely Deaths. These kill off characters, locking in the points they currently have. Like Modifiers, they can be played on your characters or your opponents'. They can also give bonuses to your character's point value.

An interesting optional rule, which would slow down play considerably but would likely make it more fun if you're playing with the right group, is Storytelling. In this mode, every time a card gets played you have to tell the story of how it happened to explain it. For instance, how it came to pass that Lord Slogar, on your last turn, was Wondrously Well Wed, but this turn is Driven to Drink and Chastised by the Church.

The cards have an interesting Victorian gothic style to them. Most of the modifiers have alliterative names, bringing to mind the titles of Lemoney Snickett books. The deaths, meanwhile, all have matched rhyming pairs. This wouldn't come out in a game, but if you sort through your cards and take out the death cards you can pair them up. For example, there's a death called "Drank Too Much Rye" and another called "Choked By a Tie." It's very reminiscent of Edward Gorey's Gashlycrumb Tinies. Moreover, what artwork there is is very reminiscent of Gorey's style.

I say "what artwork there is" because there isn't very much of it. That's because one of the unique conceits of the game is that all the cards are transparent. You put the character card on the bottom and stack the modifier cards on top of it. Later cards can cancel out the effect of earlier cards by covering up parts of them. It's quite an interesting idea, but it means that there's only artwork on the character cards. All the rest just have a title, the modifiers on the side, instructions at the bottom, and perhaps some flavor text. It'll be interesting to see how it plays, but it is a bit disappointing to get so little artwork with a card game.

It'll also be interesting to see how the play experience alters playing with cards printed on transparencies rather than card stock. It seems as though the actual material is somewhat sturdier than card-stock, so the base will hold up longer as you play it. At the same time, the printed part is just sort of stuck to the transparency, rather than inked into a card. I've just taken it out of the box and already some cards are starting to have the printed part scratched off a bit. I'm worried that excessive play will wipe cards off entirely. They also seem a bit more slippery than standard cards.

In any case, I'm quite excited by it, and hopefully I'll find someone to play with soon. The board game club isn't meeting until next semester, so I may have to wait until then. I'll update with my thoughts on the actual game once I've played it.

Posted by Zach at 05:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 19, 2005

Boredom!

Apropo my last post, I've discovered the most fascinating thing through Slumbering Lungfish. Did you know that Mark Twain invented a boring board game? Being a boring person myself, I find this game intriguing.

Essentially, you have a big board with the numbers 1 through 100, each with holes beside it for sticking pins in. You pick a century (or are allowed to declare a free-form any-century-you-please approach) and take turns naming dates from that century along with events that occured. You get ten points for every accession, five points for every battle, and one point for every minor event (essentially anything that wasn't a battle). You also get a point for random facts, scored at the bottom. I'm not sure what the criterion for getting a point are, but I would imagine there must be some threshold of interestingness/obscurity. For example, explaining the controversy over what "DVD" actually stands for might be worth a point. Telling everyone that frogs are, generally speaking, green probably doesn't count. At the end of the game, the player with the most Minor events scores a bonus 100 points.

The game ends after some alloted time (A day? An hour?), at which point the scores are tabulated and the player with the highest score wins. I really like the idea here, but then I also like boring people with trivia and I've memorized an awful lot of dates, so I have every expectation that I would kick an unholy amount of ass at this game. And, really, this game just boils down to the question "Which of the players is best at boring the others with obscure facts and dates?" I would quibble a bit with the balance of the points; 10 points for accessions and 5 for battles seems pretty extreme, and classifying everything else as minor and only worthy of one point seems harsh. The 100 point bonus redeems it slightly, but this aspect could definitely use tweaking.

Still, though, now I really want to play this game.

Posted by Zach at 08:14 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

August 24, 2005

Video Game Dream

Originally posted 8/17/2004:

Had an odd dream last night. You see, my roommate's been playing a lot of Freedom Fighters lately. Further, I periodically experience twinges of guilt at not playing through Morrowind, which I have plenty of fun with, but can never seem to really get into. Last night, these two factors combined in my subconscious mind to form a dream of a hybrid of the two games. Essentially, it was Morrowind with Freedom Fighter's charisma and squad commanding system. It seemed fairly interesting, though I'm hardly the most unbiased of judges.

The oddest part came right when I woke up. I was playing through some tutorial, and the game was explaining various status effect icons. One of them was a picture of a hip flask, and the game informed me that this indicated a taste for Kentucky bourbon, a taste which can only be satisfied by traveling to Kentucky and buying a bottle. Apparently the game is set in some post-apocalyptic future that has regressed to the Middle Ages, but still has the State/Nation/Duchy of Kentucky.

Curiouser and curioser: The next icon showed a goblin-like man chowing down on a drumstick. The game explained that this icon represented a craving for human flesh. Fortunately, it continued, this need can also be satisfied in Kentucky.

Posted by Zach at 10:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Molten Boron