|
Silverdragon
United States
Unspecified
New Mexico
|
I was looking at the geeklist about lower rated games. People have their opinions about whether certain things are fun to them, but haven't you ever played a really bad game/not so great game with a really great group of people or in the right situation that caused your opinion about that game to swing?
My personal example would be Kung Fu Samauri on Giant Robot Island. The game isn't a 10, but my group was in the right mood, and I have never laughed so hard. That night on Robot Island has driven us to play that game over and over again.
Any you can think of?
|
Pete Grey
United States
Portland
Oregon
|
Give me the Brain would be my example.
Got to be the right people at the right time. But when its good-its good!
I think having working in fast food helps out too. You appreciate the subtleties of the game more. I worked at a KFC for 3 whole days once. That makes me like a chicken expert or something.
|
Scott Nicholson
United States
Fayetteville
New York
|
This is very much at the core of what I think is a good "game experience". People ask me what my favorite game is, and I always answer that it depends upon whom I'm playing with.
Some people make any game much more fun, while others make any game much less enjoyable.
In addition, matching the game to the people can be important. A crowd that provides an enjoyable game of Why Did The Chicken...? may not provide a good Caylus experience.
My favorite game experience of all time was a game of Auf Asche, where it was all about the players and not the game.
|
Antti Puranen
Finland
Kotka
|
For me it's also mostly about playing with good friends and thusly having a good time, but there are - at the moment - two games that stand out to be absolutely hideous: The Game of Life and St. Petersburg Express. But there are still dozens of games I have played so far that I find joyful in the right company. So mostly it's about the company and the 'getting together' feeling.
|
Richard Irving
United States
Salinas
California
|
Slapshot at the WBC--those who have been there know what I am talking about!
|
Joe Huber
Westborough
Massachusetts
|
The fun of playing a game is more attributable to the group than the game. There are groups with which I always have fun, even when playing a dreadful game, and on occasion I've had an awful time playing a game I love, but with the wrong group. (This in turn is why I select my gaming opportunities carefully - I'll try gaming with any group once, but the groups I go back to are those where I've enjoyed the company of the individuals.)
For example - I played Koala recently. I didn't think much of the game - I rated it a 3 or 4 - but I had a great time playing it. So that particular play was a great experience - but the game wasn't responsible for that, so I don't rate the game highly.
|
Greg Aleknevicus
Canada
Victoria
BC
|
Frank Branham wrote about this very topic: http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/FunFactor.shtmlPersonally, I've played games of Pit that had players nearly passing out from laughter. But I've also played with other groups who found the whole exercise pointless.
|
Topher Frisco
United States
Ashland
Oregon
|
As I read through this thread I had to agree with all of the comments and thought, "why isn't this mentioned more often?"
The mention of Pit... I always roll my eyes when the game is suggested, but often end up having a good time. I would rather play ANY game than Pit (well maybe not Fluxx) but give me the right people and it doesn't matter.
Speaking of Fluxx... I introduced the game to two of my approx. 9 yr. old nieces over the Thanksgiving weekend and had a great time with them. But I'll never play it again... I swear. :-)
|
Wounded, but stable.
United States
North Pole
Alaska
|
Caylus is less annoying if people use french accents, make wine and brothel jokes, and concede to the Germans after every round of play.
|
Vanesa Sanabria
United States
Texas
|
Oh gaming is soooo much about the group -- whether it's an involved game like Caylus or a lighter game like Cities and Knights. That said it's ONLY about the group, for me, when playing verbally interactive games like Time's Up, Wits and Wagers, and Citadel.
I am very lucky in that our game group is very competitive yet loves to play no matter the outcome and loves to laugh while we each let down our guard. Together we don't care about any individual quirks -- which are often hidden in the "real" world.
|
Silverdragon
United States
Unspecified
New Mexico
|
Thanks for the discussion. Though there really are games that I do not care to play very often, there are really very few that I would decline to play altogether, depending on the group. I probably spend less time and energy analyzing the game for its mechanics/balance and more time just enjoying it. My group is completely and quickly given to creating house rules to take care of anything we find unbalanced or inconvenient, ha. greg wrote: The article is short, sweet, and to the point.
|
Mark Caldwell
United States
Ypsilanti
Michigan
|
BoardGameGeek
» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming
Re: Is the game really fun or is it the person/group?
Since the geek you play with is more important than game, it's clear we need to start rating geeks. I propose the following rating scale: 10. You would travel long distances to game with him/her, and would gladly try an embarassing party game with. If this person is the right gender, you secretly want to spoon with them, and you fantasize about raising gamer childer with them. 9. The kind of lovable gamer you wish you could game everyday with. 8. A great gamer --one you'd entice into your gaming group by always having cookies and soda around 7. A good gamer --one you'd want in your group and usually think to invite 6. A decent gamer --while not on your A list, great back-up for any group, and welcome at larger gatherings 5. So-so. While you can never have enough gamer friends, hygene may be an issue, or some personality trait may bother you. Still, when gamers are short and you're itching to try out a new title, you think about inviting 4. A little annoying, frankly. Needs to be more considerate, but when your itch to game really needs to get scratched, you'll still consider inviting. 3. Quite annoying, no one you'd willingly choose to play with. 1. Total loser. The kind you might fantasize about tatooing an "L" on their forehead. No wait, better yet, put a hockey mask on and hunt them down with a chainsaw. Moments before their death, you decide to pull off your mask to say, "Yes, yes, it's me!!! The one who you spilled your soda on, then spent your last 3 coin just to screw me with the provost!!!! Now DIEEEE!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!" 2. Still a terrible loser, but not worth hunting down
|
Kevin Dusik
Canada
Richmond
British Columbia
|
I can completely relate to this. One prime example was playing Tempus with our gaming group. I have a feeling the game is not nearly as good as our gaming experience was! Gamer_dog, I love that gamer rating scale. Too funny! Kevin 
|
Melissa - Back home in Sunny Melbourne
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
|
Gamer_Dog wrote:
Since the geek you play with is more important than game, it's clear we need to start rating geeks. I propose the following rating scale:
10. You would travel long distances to game with him/her, and would gladly try an embarassing party game with. If this person is the right gender, you secretly want to spoon with them, and you fantasize about raising gamer childer with them.
9. The kind of lovable gamer you wish you could game everyday with.
8. A great gamer --one you'd entice into your gaming group by always having cookies and soda around
7. A good gamer --one you'd want in your group and usually think to invite
6. A decent gamer --while not on your A list, great back-up for any group, and welcome at larger gatherings
5. So-so. While you can never have enough gamer friends, hygene may be an issue, or some personality trait may bother you. Still, when gamers are short and you're itching to try out a new title, you think about inviting
4. A little annoying, frankly. Needs to be more considerate, but when your itch to game really needs to get scratched, you'll still consider inviting.
3. Quite annoying, no one you'd willingly choose to play with.
1. Total loser. The kind you might fantasize about tatooing an "L" on their forehead. No wait, better yet, put a hockey mask on and hunt them down with a chainsaw. Moments before their death, you decide to pull off your mask to say, "Yes, yes, it's me!!! The one who you spilled your soda on, then spent your last 3 coin just to screw me with the provost!!!! Now DIEEEE!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!"
2. Still a terrible loser, but not worth hunting down
 With posts like that, I'd give you a tentative 7 - pretty sure you'd be at least a six, rating may improve with further play.
|
Robin
United States
Kentucky
|
This is an interesting question and I tend to agree with many comments already made. Games have to be matched with the person.
My husband and I love playing a variety of games but it is difficult to find other players particularly within my family. I've found great success with Killer Bunnies when gaming with my parents. I don't think Killer Bunnies is a favorite game but it was great fun in that situation. Silly games can be really fun with the right people.
|
John Brier
United States
Gainesville
Florida
|
I consider there to be two ways that people influence games:
1. How adept they are at playing well and thus offering solid competition.
2. Their social personality/charisma.
The former is important when playing heavier, analytical games. A perfect example is Puerto Rico, which suffers with weak players. A person can score high in terms of charisma but if they aren't intellectually investested and competent I'd rather not play PR with them.
The latter- charisma, social skills, "fun to hang out with", call it whatever you want, is important when playing a game that focuses on the social aspects. This is equally as indispensable as the former, as exemplified by the fact that games like Diplomacy and Traders of Genoa, despite requiring some intellectual investment, will compeltely fail with people who rate low on social skills.
SO they are both important, depending on what game you're playing. I prefer if the people I game with have both, since I will enjoy the games more because of their intellectual ability (I tend to prefer heavier, analytical games) but I will enjoy being in the same room with them more because of their social skills.
|
Kevin Iacoucci
Canada
Burlington
Ontario
|
I think the people you play with is about 80% of the experence. the other 20% is a good game, smooth with no problems A system that works for everyone in the group. My group sat down and tried a game of silk road, plus we included a house rule immediately because the rules didn't say you couldn't. We auctioned for everything in the game. We even started paying money not to take the leader indicator for other reasons. With the varient in place most people had a blast - and some of the people were really complaining! (always the sign of a good game if you can emotionally get to someone). Not the highest rated but a fun game that night never-the-less. Thanks for the opportunity to share! 
|
Matthias
Germany
Frankfurt
Hessen
|
It's not my favorite game by far, but if 'Bang!' hits the table with the right group, it has always been a blast! Drinking, smoking, all night long sessions with tabletalk at it's finest (and rudest  )...
|
William Hostman
United States
Eagle River
Alaska
|
I can enjoy a great game with even people I detest. (Supremacy, Civilization)
I can enjoy a good game with people I don't actively dislike. (TTRE)
I can enjoy even a marginal game when it's with people I enjoy being around. (BTVS Board Game)
I never enjoy some games, even when the company is excellent. (Diplomacy, Great Dalmuti)
Roleplaying games are just the opposite relationship: a good group is vital, and a decent game is useful.
|
Alexander B.
United States
Austin
Texas
|
aramis wrote: I can enjoy a great game with even people I detest. ...
Roleplaying games are just the opposite relationship: a good group is vital, and a decent game is useful.
I'd only add that there is a limit. If someone is abusivec or reeking, or something equally nasty, I have better things to do. The other exception is the person who refuses to take less than a LONG time every move: when someone is taking 3 or more TIMES as long as everyone else every move, that can ruin a game for me no matter how good. Still, besides there very rare situations, I share your preferences.
Last edited on 2007-01-07 17:09:25 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
james napoli
United States
Westwood
New Jersey
|
good topic.
The right game for the right people and often time the right MOOD.
i think ModernArt is my be all end all. It's really a gamers game, but the auctions can be really fun for those who know how to ham it up.
ForSale,survive and BANG! i would also throw in as a really FUN games, you really can't beat a good filler.
|
Joe Stude
United States
Unspecified
Michigan
|
it's definitely the group. I can think of many games in my collection that absolutely shine with the right group, but that I don't think I'd even want to attempt playing with groups of people I don't know as well (or at all).
|
|
|
Posted Sat Jan 6, 2007 2:54 am
