We Hates it, My Precious... We HATES it.

In the blog entry below this one, Agent Easy mentions some games which he indicates that I dislike. I should clarify that I don't really dislike Carcassonne; I just don't feel it offers much challenge, strategically or tactically, once you've played it often enough. I started this post as a comment in response to that post, but I realized it could be of more value as an actual entry.

Since challenge is part of the fun for me in boardgaming, I don't specifically choose Carcassonne when picking for WAGS; however, I will definitely hold onto it for playing with my kids as they grow up. Once they're past... I dunno... eight or so, I'll probably trade it or give it to a relative's family with school-age children.

I can't really think of any games that I hate off-hand.

What I can do is list games which I don't look forward to playing, but often enjoy while actually playing (I'll call them "Daunting Games"), and then games which I neither look forward to and don't particularly enjoy ("Onerous Games").

I should be very clear that just because I list a game as "Daunting", doesn't mean that I hate it, just that I tend not to want to pick it personally, especially for WAGS. Sometimes they are actually games that I feel I should play (because they are good games or because they would improve my strategic abilities) but just don't feel like playing.

Daunting Games (Don't Look Forward to, Do enjoy playing - generally)

• El Grande
• Tigris and Euphrates
• Age of Steam
• Paths of Glory
• Advanced Squad Leader
• Dungeon Twister
• OCS-series wargames (eg. Burma)
• Diplomacy
• Empire of the Sun
  

Onerous Games (Don't Look Forward To, Don't Enjoy Playing - generally)

• Yinsh (... and Dvonn, and other abstracts in this line) - too abstract
  
• Maharajah - can't seem to win against Bharmer. (I kid... but I don't like this game)
  
• Bohnanza - random, tedious, negotiation-heavy
  
• Atlantic Star - dry, theme is badly suited and counter-intuitive
  
• Phoenicia - major run-away leader issues
  
• Kill Doctor Lucky - kill the leader, almost exclusively
  
• Naval Battles - kill the leader, almost exclusively
  
• 1856 - complex, fiddly, overlong
  
• Aladdin's Dragons - random, some cards overpowered to the point of game-breaking
  
• Blue Moon City - ugly, strange theme. actually a decent game, but theme and appearance kill it for me.
  
• Mille Bornes - random, overlong, kill the leader issues.
  
• Fluxx - generally, not enough game, not enough challenge, kill the leader issues
  
• Air War - way too fiddly/complex for the sort of action it purports to try to evoke.
  
• EastFront - strategically too much to consider
  
• Space Alert - random, too easily foiled, crew feel like moronic automatons
  

Note to Agent Easy: I know you don't take it personally that I dislike a number of games that you own - the only real contributing factor is that you own a lot of games and I'm bound to dislike some of them.

Looking through the worst ranked games at BGG, I can't really find too many I would refuse to play with their age group (for example, though I wouldn't play Candyland or Hungry Hungry Hippos with adults, I wouldn't mind playing it with kids)

Some games I just won't play willingly for one reason or another:

Doctor Who: CCG, which I don't really hate... more just feel sorry for. It's just baaaad. Bad art, bad mechanics, bad gameplay.

Lone Wolf and Cub: This game is random, too tough at times and too easy at others, and downright broken in combat. I dislike it additionally because its theme is one I particularly like and they went and made a crappy game of it.

Dante's Inferno: Overlong, fiddly and boring.

Zombies!!!: Overlong and wastes the theme.

Chainsaw Warrior: Overlong, virtually no significant decisions, too difficult. Feels futile.

Mastermind: I have no interest in playing this game. For some reason, the logic of it (simple as I understand it to be) goes off like a bomb in my head and leaves me with frustration headache. One day I will sit down and figure out why I have so much trouble with it... bad mental wiring for that sort of thinking, I guess.

Finally, there is one special "dislike" category that is pretty specific, games which I enjoy playing but really dislike the artwork. For lack of a more precise term, I call them "Ugly but Lovable Games".

Ugly but Lovable Games

• Glory to Rome
• Galaxy Trucker
• Ideology

I like playing these games but every time I do, I find myself wincing at the artwork or components. Glory to Rome is especially, especially painful to me as it is a really fun game otherwise.

Then there are games which are just... plain... ugly. Neither enjoyable (to me) nor attractive.

Just Plain Ugly Games

• Blue Moon City

Anyhow... there are movies (Pearl Harbour, Space Buddies) and TV shows (almost any reality show) which I hate, but I haven't actually played a board game that I hate. Probably because I've avoided playing games which I anticipated hating (most TV-themed board games).

We now return you to your regularly scheduled smiles-and-sunshine-filled WAGS postings.

Calpulli - in - space!!! (Mexica, Space Alert! x2, Jungle Speed)

It's been a few weeks, I was glad to be back.

I traded away a few games recently for Mexica, an older title from the Kramer & Kielsing's "Mask Trilogy" (Tikal, Java and Mexica). Tikal is a game I really like, and Mexica has been described as a faster playing and shorter game that still has interesting gameplay. I've had a few opportunities to get it at trades over the years, and always passed. Finally, curiosity finally got the better of me.

Mexica
Like the rest of the Mask trilogy, Mexica is essentially an area majority game. Here, players place canal tiles to subdivide a large island into smaller regions (which is worth points), and then try to earn further points by gaining majorities in the created regions (the measure of a player's influence in a region is determined by having the largest temples).

Another characteristic it shares with Tikal and Java is that it's based on the action point system. Mexica gives 6 points with which to build canals, temples, bridges, or simply to move around the board. One twist is that up to 2 points may be carried over to future rounds.

I found that the game is certainly shorter than Tikal, but that the level of confrontation and opportunity for "screwage" is far higher than I would normally associate with a "light" game. In my mind, this is much more of a medium weight game... in line with Settlers of Catan and the like.

We started by settling the edge of the board and working our way inwards. There was a substantial amount of nasty blocking and stealing of majorities by all players (a good thing), but Kozure seemed to always be a few steps ahead. The fact that he secured the majority in the unfounded region at the center of the board when the game ended only cemented his win.

I've now played twice (once with WAGS, and once with my in-laws) and both games have been very enjoyable. I have this strange feeling that the incentive to actually end the first round might prove to be lacking, since the first player to do it is at a substantial disadvantage, but we'll see.

Space Alert!

We attempted Space Alert! again, this time with 4 players. After we got creamed in our first session, we decided it would be best if we tried again. Hopefully experience counts for something, right? No. We died again.

This game is certainly an odd duck. My enthusiasm for it has not diminished, despite our continued dismal showings. On the other hand, the group still doesn't seem sold on it (not sure what Luch thought of it). The chaos factor is high, and apparently our ability to self organize under pressure is lacking.

- We have difficulty setting targets, like "fire guns in the red sector on the 6th phase" and making them happen.
- We don't pay enough attention to the text on the threats that come up. In this session, we coordinated an attack on an internal threat, but it was unharmed because none of us noticed it would move around the ship when it crossed the "X" event.
- etc. etc.

Anyway, I had a great time, despite sucking at it. I'm sure that if we kept playing it we'd get better and eventually succeed frequently but I don't get the sense that our group will ever find out! Oh well, at least it plays solo.

Shemp also mentioned that he was surprised I liked the game since I have often complained about unnecessary "fiddliness" in the past. He's right, but for the type of gaming experience this game offers it doesn't bother me. I wish it had been streamlined more, of course, but I also give it credit for being an original idea for a game.

Jungle Speed

We ended with Jungle Speed. It's been a while, so we were all quite rusty. I warmed up in time, and won the game after a shaky start. Fun game usual... perfect for what it is!

Two "Dumbs" don't make a "Smart" (Zombie Fluxyx, Space Alert x3, In the Year of the Dragon)

Taste is a funny thing.

Obviously, everyone has their preferences. When it comes to games, I personally enjoy a pretty broad spectrum of types of games: Strategy, thematic, silly, wargames, party, light/ heavy...

and...

cooperative/ competitive

With the exception of Lord of the Rings, the cooperative genre is relatively young. LOTR has been a polarizing game for us, as it has been in the larger gaming world. I love it, Kozure, Bharmer and Luch like it well enough (I think), and Shemp hates it. Now that cooperative and semi-cooperative games have become fashionable, it seems that we've had a chance to determine how the group *really* feels about the genre. Reactions have been mixed, but generally speaking I'd say it's not been terribly successful.

We've played LOTR, Shadows over Camelot, Pandemic, Battlestar Galactica and, this week, Space Alert (I've also played Red November, though not with WAGS). Of these, Pandemic has been the most successful at pleasing everybody. LOTR and Battlestar Galactica was well liked by approximately half the group, Shadows over Camelot I got rid of because after a few plays I lost all interest.

Shemp summed his feelings rather well when he mentioned that in most games he looks forward to the interaction of the various play styles of each player. The gameplay of cooperative games ultimately revolves around efficiently managing incoming crisis, which in turn largely defines the kind of reaction you can take. For this reason they are more about sharing a common experience, muting individual play style and eliminating a certain type of player interaction. It's worth noting that Shemp is also not a big fan of non-cooperative games that have little interaction, for much the same reason (Race for the Galaxy and Agricola have been two recent examples).

Still, because it's so peculiar, I had no idea how the group would react to Space Alert... it turns out the answer was "meh" from Shemp and Kozure (the jury is still out on Bharmer or Luch's reaction since they weren't around).

Me? I really liked it.

Space Alert

Space Alert is a cooperative game that places the players in the unfortunate role of a hapless crew tasked with the responsibility of defending a spaceship, the Sitting Duck, for 10 minutes while it maps an uncharted sector of space. It's worth mentioning that he setting is nicely integrated into the rule book, which is quite humorous and reminds me of old "Paranoia" material. To defend the ship, the players have a number of laser cannons, rockets, battlebots and shields. However, the guns and shields need power, and managing and distributing power is crucial to ensure that *heaven forbid* the shields run out and the guns fail to fire.

The "gimmick" is that the game literally lasts 10 minutes... players listen to a CD which informs players of the various threats that appear (and when). It also tells players when the different phases start and end, etc. During that time, players must program their character's actions RoboRally style (a combination of "move around the ship" and "push this button" instructions) in an attempt to counter the threats and prevent them from destroying the ship. The problem is that the time limit, the cards dealt, the logistics required to make things work and the inherently inefficient nature of oral communication makes this a rather chaotic and difficult endeavor. After the 10 minutes are up, the programmed cards are revealed one by one to see what really happened, and to discover if the crew succeeded... or if the ship has been destroyed.

Thankfully, the game is designed to ease players into the chaos through several introductory scenarios that gradually introduce the various functions of the ship, and the rules of the game. The first two we played were only 7 minutes long, asking us to program 7 actions in that time. In both cases, 3 threats appeared. Guns and shields are in play, but none of the other subsystems are. We did alright: We lived through the first scenario and narrowly failed he second.

Our last play was also an introductory one, but slightly more advanced. Rockets are introduced. We discover that the ship has a screen saver which needs to be toggled frequently to avoid interruptions to other important subsystems (like, umm, lasers). Advanced threats are now placed in the mix. Damage is no longer represented by generic cubes, instead replaced by chits that identify damage to specific components of the ship (which, of course, means that they will malfunction). Oh, and we now have 10 minutes to program 13 actions.

We got pasted.

Please keep in mind that because we were only 3 players, we had to control an "android" which is essentially a fourth player that we all share in programming (we named it "Luch"). Since we were not particularly skilled in programming our own actions, managing an extra player was difficult.

We screwed up many times. On one occasion, I screwed up twice and they ended up cancelling each other into a good move (though we still came to the conclusion that two dumbs don't make a smart). Other times, we weren't so lucky.

When I play the game, I find the planning period to be tremendously fun. I like attempting to coordinate a number of actions under the time pressure. I like that I never really have a sense that I know what's going on (for example, because I haven't had a chance to read the descriptions of the incoming threats). I like that I'm planning with other players to accomplish specific tasks, but that I'm not sure it will work out even if the plan itself is solid (this could happen either because a player miss-programmed their actions, because a part of the ship took damage and part of our plan becomes impossible due to malfunctioning equipment, etc). It follows that since I like the planning phase due in part to the unpredictability, I like witnessing how the actions play out (just as in RoboRally). I feel satisfaction when the plan (or dumb luck, or more likely a combination of both) comes together, and I find it funny when things screw up.

When it's over, whether we win or not I immediately want to play again and try to do better. It's very nice that the game ramps up the difficulty over time, because it keeps the game challenging and frantic.

Anyway, as I said Shemp and Kozure weren't wowed by it. They found that the programming cards too often limited your actions, that too often you just couldn't do anything coherent with what you had. I suppose their is nothing stopping us from introducing a variant where players get more cards every phase, or maybe that each player starts the game with a preconstructed deck of actions

Zombie Fluxx

I had never played a fluxx game before, but it sounded novel, silly, short and easy to play so I thought I'd take a chance on it. Fluxx games are all similar in that they start with just a few simple rules (draw a card then play a card) and no goal. Over the course of the game, as cards get played, new rules get added and goals are introduced. For example, you mighy play a card which says :"New rule: Draw 3 cards instead of 1". From then on, all players draw the new amount of cards. Similarly, if a Goal card is played a winning condition is added to the game... for example "The first player with 3 zombies wins". Only one goal card can be in play at a time, though, so the goal will change over the course of the game. The game therefore goes on until a combination of cards played lines up with the goal on the table.

I purchased the Zombie version because it seemed more fun to me, but now I wonder whether the theme might turn off the type of people I'd be likely to play this with. I think Shemp and Kozure thought it was... fine. Shemp's wife, Hilaria, doesn't often play games with us but did play a hand of this. Not sure what she thought of it (though I didn't get a sense she was a big fan). I thought it was decent, and can definitely see enjoying it over beer when looking to just kill time.

In the Year of the Dragon

We haven't played this in a while, and that's really a shame because I truly enjoy this game. It's definitely my favorite new pure euro that I've played in quite a long time. In the past I've done quite well at the game, but this time I struggled to keep up on the people track so the early lead I got in VPs was quickly eroded. Kozure, who managed to stay well in the lead on the person track throughout the game saw his strategy pay off about 3/4s of the way through the game... surpassing me and winning with a convincing lead.

Great game.