|
|
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?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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: 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.
|
|
|
Slapshot at the WBC--those who have been there know what I am talking about!
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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. :-)
|
|
|
As has been said, it's a mixture of a good game and a good group. A great game will bomb with the wrong people and a bad game will provide great entertainment with the right people.
The last game that surprised me this way was Beowulf. I'd heard mixed things about it, we didn't know each other all that well and then this hits the table. It was an unbelievably rude game - choppers, horns, helmets and fists amongst other game components - but I had a riot playing the game. I haven't laughed so hard for months playing a grown-up game. On that day it was the right game with the right people. In a more sober climate, it would have bombed (too much luck) and trying to re-create the riotous atmosphere on another day would have made the game playing too forced. But on that day, with that group, it was near-perfection and took me right back to being a teenager when everything anyone said was rude, if you tried hard enough; ooh, err, missus!
|
|
|
Caylus is less annoying if people use french accents, make wine and brothel jokes, and concede to the Germans after every round of play.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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
|
|
Posted Sat Jan 6,2007 02:54 am
