[1] Prev « 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 Next » [8]
-
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
-
Almost always, when I talk with groups of people about game design, I quote Antoine de Saint-Exup'ery: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Recently as I answered questions after a session, someone told me about a RPG he'd designed and tested, that all the testers said was too complex. "How do I simplify it?" he said.
An assumption here is that the testers, by and large, aren't able to say exactly what must be simplified, they just know that currently there's too much.
First, I said, try to write down the "essence" of the game in a few sentences. This can take some doing, believe me. Ideally you've done it already, but if you had, perhaps you wouldn't be having the too-much-complexity problem to begin with.
There are different ways to characterize the essence of a game, sometimes structurally, sometimes according to what the player does, sometimes in another way or a combination.
Example (Britannia): "On an anvil of blood and terror they forged the destiny of an island!" In this epic wargame four players each control several nations playing at different times with different objectives throughout the Dark Ages history of Great Britain. Romans, Britons and Gaels, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans --they all play a part in the history of Britain. Combat is resolved with dice. This is a strategic game of achieving objectives, not of conquest, though many invaders conquer much of Britain at different times. 4 to 5 hours for experienced players. "Invade Britain. Rewrite history. Rule."
Then think about the various aspects of the game in relation to that essence. If something doesn't contribute to the essence, can it be removed? Surely, at the least, it can be simplified, abstracted, or combined with something else. Every game (tabletop or video), at bottom, is fairly simple, and your job is to retain its simple heart and remove what doesn't contribute enough to that heart.
Second, make a list of the major features or elements of the game, perhaps 10 to 20 of them. Consider again how they contribute to the essence, and how you can remove or simplify or combine as appropriate.
After you have (in your mind, at this point) removed or simplified what you confidently can, give the list of the (now remaining) features to your playtesters and ask them to decide which could be removed entirely, and which should be simplified. (This may not help much if testers disagree about whether the game is too complex.) Don't ask people to rank each feature in comparison to the others, as that can be quite hard. It's much easier for people to divide a group into four parts, in this case from most important to the game down to least important. You might even want to write the features on separate 3 by 5 index cards to make it easy for the playtester to sort them.
Whether you ask playtesters individually or in groups depends on what you think they'll be most comfortable with.
Then consider how you can get rid of the items in the bottom quarter, or even the bottom half if the game is much too complex.
Then playtest the result, of course.
I've listed these in an order beginning with what you can do on your own, to what you can do in conjunction with your playtesters.
-
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
-
As we all know, dividing groups of people into two more or less opposites can be illuminating, certainly in the context of games. It can also be divisive of course, but I hope that will not prove to be the case here. Video gamers have made me realize that there are different ways to approach game playing as a part of your life. "Escapist Magazine" likes to talk about "the gamer lifestyle". I've played games for more than 50 years but I have not seen it is a lifestyle, rather as a part of life. Perhaps because video games have been subject to so much criticism in the past, some videogame players think of the gamer lifestyle as a unique (and in some way superior) approach to the world and to life.
I'm not going to try to explicate that whole business, but I have seen that video gamers often approach game playing quite differently than I have. Simply put, they are Gamers while I am a Game Player, and I'll explain what I mean by those terms.
Gamers prefer game playing to almost any other activity. When they have "time to kill", they'll play games. On the other hand, Game Players treat game playing as one enjoyable activity amongst many. (And they may not think of games as "killing time" at all.) The Gamer frequently asks of a game, though often subconsciously, "is this a good way to kill time". The Game Player approaches a game with the question "is this a good way to spend my (valuable) time". These are generalizations of course, and there are going to be lots of people in the middle as there usually is with any division of the group into two parts.
A Gamer will play virtually any game within broad categories, and could be said to have very wide-ranging tastes. For example, I've known Gamers who were willing to try almost any game "as long as it doesn't take more than an hour". Another example would be a person who will play almost any action videogame, or almost any role-playing game.
Game Players like to play games, but not just any game or not even "anything of a particular genre". They like specific games, or occasionally groups of games. A Game Player may just play one game or a specific category or specific favorite games.
If you ask a Gamer what his favorite game is, he will often be unable to say, or it will be the game he is currently playing. If you ask a Game Player what his favorite game is, he can probably say, and can probably tell you what all of his favorite games have been back to when he was very young, and this number may not have reached double figures even for someone who is a "senior citizen".
Tabletop Gamers are happy to participate in a group where people in turn choose which game to play and they all play it. Game Players rarely do that, unless they're with a group of similar-minded people with definite limits on the kinds of games they'll choose.
A sports analogy might help. The sports fan equivalent Gamer loves to watch sports, lots of different sports. He may be a season ticket holder if there is such an opportunity. The equivalent of a Game Player likes to watch certain sports, and may watch a lot of games, but doesn't feel a need to watch every game even of his favorite team. Life intervenes...
Gamers derive self-worth from being good at playing (video) games in general. If Game Players do, it's because they are extremely good at one game, or a few.
Gamers tend to treat games as a lifestyle or a job (think of all the people who talk about how much work it is to play MMOs). Game Players tend to treat games as a hobby.
So casual game players are much more likely to be Game Players than Gamers. And hard-core game players are much more likely to be Gamers than Game Players. Yet I do not equate hard-core with Gamers, or casual with Game Players. Someone who plays Magic: the Gathering incessantly, plays the game and tournaments, spends a a lot of money on cards, is a hard-core player but he's as likely to be a Game Player as a Gamer.
Are Gamers more passive in preferences and Game Players more active? I can make an argument either way. Game Players have favorite games. Game Players know what they want. Game Players are not just killing time, Gamers often are. Yet Gamers often have very strong opinions about games, and often are willing to have interminable discussions about the qualities of games, which traits are less common amongst Game Players.
Game Players focus their time, hence play certain games only (some play only one game, chess, D&D, Magic, Farmville, match-3 games, e.g.). Gamers tend to be less focused.
Gamers tend to dive into a game immediately. If it's a tabletop game, they may try to learn to play it while they're playing it, and many sets of contemporary tabletop game rules are written in "sequence of play" to make this more practical. Video games, of course, are ideal for diving in immediately. Tabletop Game Players like to study a game, like to read and even study the rules before playing.
Many game designers are primarily interested in making games for Gamers. This tends to mean that the designer need not be concerned about long-term replayability, because the Gamer is likely to soon go on to another game in any case. Those designing for Game Players may have a harder task, because game players tend to play their favorite games over and over again. A lot of published games don't hold up under the pressure of that criterion.
-
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
-
(Warning: Spoilers for George R. R. Martin's Song of Fire and Ice (Game of Thrones) series below!)
I was exposed to Game of Thrones: the Boardgame before I read the Song of Fire and Ice books.
I have the minor curse of thinking like a game designer whenever games are discussed. When I originally wrote this I was in the third book of Song of Fire and Ice as I write, both Robb and apparently Catelyn having died, and to me the essence of the series is chaos and that you can only trust your own immediate family (and I suspect even that will change with the Lannisters): a breakdown of moral values. (I have since finished what has been published, and I seem to be right.)
Game of Thrones the boardgame is instructive now that I'm reading the books: as a simulation or even representation of the books, it's a failure. As a representation of the situation throughout the region where most of the books' action takes place, it does no better than the game Diplomacy does as a representation of World War I.
The boardgame Game of Thrones treats each of the "kingdoms" as a separate monolithic entity with no chance of internal betrayal. The situation described in the books calls for random events and Event Cards, not for something as straightforward as Diplomacy-style. So it could reflect the books much better, but it then would become a game for improvisors (who like chaos) rather than planners (who like order).
The situation just doesn't seem like one that ought to appeal to planners. As I said, chaos is a central theme of the books.
As a Diplomacy-style game the game appears to have a big geographical problem. Peninsulas do not make good settings for that kind of game, as someone ends up "in the middle".
This is not to assert that GoT:tBG isn't a good game. It IS to say it doesn't have much to do with the books, and may have problems as a boardgame.
-
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
-
I have tried a couple of my simpler games with my wife (who has been a game player, but isn’t nowadays) and her octogenarian parents, who play Bridge but not other games. One of the games, involving cards and pirates, was recently played for the first time by a precocious six and a half year old, so the comparisons were interesting. Aside from that session, no one else had played the game. It is so new that it doesn’t have a name, though it is derived from another of my games, so much of it is “set” rather than brand new. (As it has a pirate atmosphere, it may end up being called “Tortuga”.)
The other game, a semi-abstract perfect information space racing game, had been played 28 times, and is very stable. We played the three player version (in other words, I didn’t play). It is much more strategic than the card game, sometimes being compared to Chinese Checkers, sometimes to Chess.
One of the older folks struggled mightily with the rules and strategies of the pirates game. She picked up the space race game much more quickly. Why, I wondered, because she is a person who likes to play standard card games, and this game is almost entirely cards. But the cards don’t have suits or numbers, and there’s a profusion of them (maybe 40 different ones, though many are of similar type). On the other hand the space race game is very “clean” and simple, with eight pieces per player, and only two kinds of pieces.
Since then we’ve played both games with relatives our age (Sue’s brother and wife, also not regular game players). They picked up the card game fairly quickly, but the boardgame even faster despite starting at a late hour.
I can speculate that fewer kinds of pieces, and fewer pieces, both help make it easier to understand a game. Hardly an earth-shaking conclusion. But if you want atmosphere and color then a game using cards, and more different possibilities, may be more effective.
I see lots of Euro games nowadays with lots of bits and cards, and perhaps one purpose is to help strengthen the atmosphere of what is likely to be a pretty abstract game, as most Euros are. (I think of many of these games as “mental gymnastics”, where players are expected to learn complexity for the sake of complexity. To me, if a game is abstract, it ought to be simple.)
I’ve been told by publishers that, unfortunately, purely abstract games are hard to market because there’s no story (atmosphere or theme) to them. Think about it, when people pick up a Euro game in a shop and look at the back, what do they see? They’re told about the atmosphere, not about how the game plays. Frequently there’s absolutely nothing to tell you what the gameplay is like, or there will be a rating of strategy and luck to go along with a listing of number of players and age level.
Aside: an atmosphere for a game is something it is supposed to represent, something your’re supposed to feel about it, but which has nothing to do with how it’s actually played. A theme is similar except that it helps determine how the game is designed to be played, that is, moves you can make in the game often reflect what you can do in reality, as in many historical wargames. Knowing something about the nature of the thematic topic might help you play the game better, though often not; knowing the nature of the atmosphere topic makes no difference at all in your play.
Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:24 am
-
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
-
One way to get plastic tanks and other land units, warships, and planes is to buy a used copy of Axis & Allies. But the latest version, 1942, seems to go for quite low prices. I recently received a copy from
"NWS ONLINE GAMING STORE 1-407-925-7782 nws-online@nws-online.net"
for $19.99 plus shipping, all told less than $33. While there are places where you can buy one color of pieces for $6 or $8, this amounts to cheaper if you want several colors.
(For what it's worth, while most wargames with plastic pieces are manufactured in China--the pieces, anyway--Hasbro has their own molding machines and most likely made A&A in their US factories.)
-
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
-
Sometimes I have observations that don't require a separate post. As below...
**
I have been reading about the "Lone Wolf" series of books, which I had not heard of, which were the same kind of thing as "Fighting Fantasy" and "Choose Your Own Adventure".
These books were interactive puzzles, not games. There was no semblance of intelligent opposition. And it's not surprising that the authors of Lone Wolf and Fighting Fantasy have gone on to be prominent in video games: Joe Devers designing them, Steve Jackson co-founder (with Peter Molyneux) of Lionhead Studios, Ian Livingstone Life President of Eidos. The puzzle-books led naturally to video gaming.
**
I am working on a couple "block games" at the moment, and am... well, *astonished*, that in none of the existing games I've seen have I found decoy blocks, that is, blocks that don't represent anything at all and are there to confuse the enemy. The more blocks a game uses, the more you'd expect this. I allow decoys in my space wargame that uses face-down pieces (more awkward than, but much cheaper than, blocks). I have to limit the number of decoy pieces or they would be all over the place.
I suppose one or more of these games must use decoys, but I haven't found one yet.
[Since I posted this on my external blog a day or two ago, someone has named three Columbia block games with decoys.]
**
"Skills" in video games are often nearly unique to video games. They are improvements in small-movement coordination, sight, quick reactions, perception of things on a screen. Sometimes this translates to real-world applications, usually it doesn't.
**
Tabletop gamers pass the time with friends (acquaintances, family). Traditional video gamers pass the time with a computing device. Jakob Nielsen (guru of Web usability) notes that killing time is a "killer app" in the "mobile space". When I play a game, I ask myself "is this worth my time?", not "is this a good way to kill time?". Many video gamers apparently ask the second question, though often not consciously.
**
To me, social network games are a reversion to early days of video game development, when the typical single player video game was an interactive puzzle, not a game. *Intelligent* opposition has been a hallmark of games for centuries, but in those early video games there was no semblance of intelligent opposition.
Social network games are usually very simple puzzles where the solution is obvious, but where (in many genres) you need to do it just about every day with considerable repetition in order to succeed long-term.
Furthermore, a significant part of video (and to a lesser extent tabletop) game playing is "killing time". It's really EASY to kill time with simple puzzles like Farmville, and you can do it in little bits of time at a sitting.
Many social network games are the new form of solitaire. ("Hold 'em" is an obvious exception.) The "game" solitaire (cards or video) has very little to recommend it, a very simple, mindless puzzle, yet some people play incessantly. A lot of game playing is habit, which sometimes includes playing what your friends are playing.
I hope that over time we'll see "social" video games mean the same thing that is meant by the phrase in tabletop gaming, that is, friends (or people who may become friends) playing a game together at the same time in the same "place", perhaps as much or more for their friends' company as for the game.
(By the way, I try not to call them "social games", because they are usually solitary, and are rarely social.
**
Social network games also appeal to programmers, because they are simple enough that "designers" may not be needed. Just like the old Atari/arcade days when the programmer was also designer and (sometimes) artist and sound person.
**
It would be interesting to know what proportion of new tabletop games do NOT have cards, and what proportion have out-and-out Event Cards.
**
As a game designer you want to make sure (as much as you can) that your game design works when the players are not really paying attention. Because "not really paying attention" is quite common in the days of MP3 players, smart phones, iPads, and so forth. Playtesting with ordinary players should help you test that.
At the extreme, I recall reading one player's comment that he wanted to be able to not really pay attention for half or even two thirds of a game, and still have a chance of winning. That's a characteristic of many family games, and of some Euro games (insofar as many Euros are "family games on steroids").
**
The whole idea of "play a game to completion" and "beating the game" (in video gaming) is foreign to what games have been for thousands of years: something you play again and again and again, not "beat", something that "of course" you play to completion, how else would you do it?
You can beat a puzzle, and then there's no reason to keep doing it. You can also quit a puzzle before completing it.
**
Why do Wii owners buy fewer games than 360 and PS3 owners? Perhaps it's because Wii games, at least the ones that are designed to be played by several people in the same room, do not "wear out", they continue to please, so the Wii owners don't need to buy more games. Whereas the hard core games, which are more like interactive puzzles than like multi-sided games, tend to "wear out" because the puzzles have been solved, so the players must buy more games in order to renew their enjoyment.
Or to put it another way, Wii games, insofar as they are multi-sided games, have much higher replay value than solitaire interactive puzzles.
**
A comment to the beginning designer: "Patience Grasshopper". Most of the time, it takes years to get a tabletop game published. I tested a huge "Barbaria" (all of Europe) game in 1980, when Britannia (then called Invasions) was far along. So I started Britannia around 1979. It was first published, in Britain, in 1986. And while that original Barbaria was much too large (90-some spaces, took 12 hours when we first played it), I have two made-from-scratch games on the same subject that might someday be published.
Tue May 17, 2011 12:15 pm
-
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
-
Maxims of Game Design
[02.04.10]
- Lewis Pulsipher
In the age of "instant gratification" -- of the sound bite or video clip -- we often look for shortcuts to understanding. "Maxims" are one form, each one a brief "expression of a general truth or principle". As part of teaching young adult beginners about game design, I've pursued a list of maxims about game design, even as I know that such brief expressions leave out a great deal that's important.
Read more »
-
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
-
I’m probably not the best person for finding playtesters, but I can give you some ideas.
A friend of mine thinks that when Facebook finally gets its act together about groups then there will be lots of regional/local game groups to choose from. Until then Meetup groups are all over the United States, and usually cost nothing to joining (the organizers have to pay a monthly fee) http://www.meetup.com/. There are general game groups, role-playing game groups, groups for specific games like D&D or chess, and so forth. If you’re willing to pay the monthly fee you could start a Meetup yourself for your local area.
If there’s a college or university around, look for a game club. Search for “game” or “club” on the college’s Web site. For example, North Carolina State and Duke University both have tabletop game clubs, and NC State also has a video game club. Unfortunately that’s 50 and more miles away from me, and my local city colleges and universities don’t seem to have game clubs. Of course you can always try to start one, although some schools make it difficult, especially for someone who isn’t a student or employee of the school. Game clubs may exist in high schools as well.
Many game shops host game nights. In my area (230th largest metropolitan area in the country) there are three shops that hold game nights (or Saturdays). In the much larger Triangle area there are several more than that.
Some game shops will let you put up a notice that you’re looking for gamers. Through a lucky succession of circumstances that’s how I met my wife in 1977.
Some online game communities have search capabilities so that you can look for people in your local area who play games.
Your local library may be willing to host game sessions, although in my particular case I find that they don’t let people reserve a room regularly over the course of a year, so it’s hard the start a regular game meeting at a library. That depends on the policy where you are.
There may be community centers, perhaps at local parks, where you can put up notices or perhaps schedule meetings.
If there is an online community for games something like yours then that may be a source for playtesters. Boardgamegeek is the first place to look, followed by Yahoo groups. For example there’s an entry on boardgame geek for Britannia and a Yahoo group for Britannia (Eurobrit), so if I want to find playtesters for a Britannia-like game those are the first places to look.
For video games you might look for local “game lounges” and other commercial in-person community game concerns.
Some of your friends may be game players and you don’t even know it. Friends are not necessarily good playtesters because they may be too nice to tell you your game has defects–depends on your friends! Mine like to find defects, and that’s usually good.
My experience of finding distant blind testers via various online contacts is that the volunteers rarely follow through and actually give you feedback. But it does happen.
I understand Reiner Knizia has groups that enable him to playtest six nights a week. But that’s Reiner, who is obviously an exception to the norm.
-
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
-
So you’re going to make a game for the very first time
You’ve thought about making games for a long time, but you haven’t seriously pursued it. Until you get serious about it, you’ve accomplished nothing, you’re a mere dilettante. So today you've decided to make a game. How are you going to go about it?
First, unless you have well-developed programming skills you're going to have a much better chance of achieving something if you make a tabletop game, or (perhaps) make a level for a videogame. The most important thing is to get to where you play the game. All the idea generation and other preliminary stuff is effectively airy-fairy head-in-the-clouds daydreaming that almost anyone can do but which does them no good if it doesn't result in a playable prototype. Without well-developed programming skills or at least a good working knowledge of small game engine such as Gamemaker, you won't be able to make a videogame prototype soon enough for it to be practical. You may be able to use a level editor that's included in an existing game to make a variation, and that can be a good way to start.
Second, beginners almost always make a game based on another game. Often the best way to start out is to make a variation of an existing game, because it takes a lot less time and work to get to the point where you can play it. Again this applies to tabletop games or to video games that provide ways to modify them, usually a level/scenario editor. If you can’t bring yourself to make tabletop games then the level editor is definitely the easiest way to start out, even though you’ll have to learn how to use the level editor, a non-trivial task.
Third, reign back your ambition. Try to pick a type or form of game that is fairly common, not one that’s unusual; unusual forms are frequently more difficult to achieve, that’s why they’re unusual. For example, cooperative games are especially difficult in tabletop form because it’s so hard to provide significant opposition. This is much easier to do with a videogame IF you have the programming and “artificial intelligence” skills. But it is still much harder to program a game that can be played by two or more people at the same time, than to program one that is played by one person at a time.
In other words try to choose a project you actually have a chance to complete. This can be generalized to “keep it simple”. Making a game is almost always harder than it seems at first, even for experienced people. The most common mistake of people seriously trying to make a video game is to plan a project that they have virtually no chance of ever finishing, because it will take much too long. Remember, AAA video games take hundreds of man-years to complete for professionals with vast budgets.
Fourth, focus on the gameplay not on the appearance (or the story) of the game. You’re making a prototype, not a finished game. You want something that people can play so that you find out whether they enjoy playing, and how you can improve it. You can’t rely on flashy looks to make games fun, even if you’re an outstanding artist. A major mistake of novice game designers is to make something that’s pretty rather than something that’s functional. If you have something that just looks functional and people like to play then imagine how much more they’ll enjoy it when it looks professionally pretty. You only need it to look good enough that playtesters will be willing to play, and that depends in great part on what playtesters are available, how well you know them, how persuasive you are, and many other factors not related to the game itself.
In most cases, you may be excited about your story, but other people won’t be. Most games are played for the game, not the story (which is often only an excuse to get to the action). If you’re heavily into story, write a novel, don’t design a game! When you’re experienced you may be able to rely on a story to make a game enjoyable, when you start out that’s a big mistake.
Fifth, when you have a playable prototype play it yourself, solo, before you inflict on other people. I say “inflict” deliberately. You may be super excited, you may think it’s the greatest thing ever, but in reality it will be like almost every other initial prototype of a game, it will suck. Experienced designers have a much better chance of recognizing what will suck before the game is played: they play the game in their mind’s eye, so to speak, and anticipate many problems before it’s ever played in reality. Beginners should try to do the same but will be much less successful at spotting the flaws. What solo testing can do is quickly reveal where the game really sucks so that you can change it before other people have to put up with it. In other words, be nice to your playtesters: get rid of the really bad aspects yourself rather than foist them on other people who want to play a fun game.
Some people confronted with the notion of solo playing a multiplayer tabletop game will say they just can’t do it, they just can’t dissociate themselves from one side when they play another side. Wags like to say “well at least when you play solo always win”. Of course you also always lose. But the point of solo playtesting is not to win or lose, it’s to find out whether the game is worthwhile and how it can be improved. And that dispassionate dissociation from one side to another when you play a solo game will actually help you recognize what’s good and bad about the game.
I cannot say this enough: play the game yourself before anybody else plays.
Sixth, if you got this far you’re doing really well. But you’ve only just begun. The really hard part of making a game is a last 20% of improvement that takes 80% of the time. This is a process of playtesting, evaluating the results, modifying the game to improve it in light of the results, playtesting again, and going through the whole cycle again and again and again. This is called the iterative and incremental development of the game. If you want to make a really good game then you are probably going to be sick and tired of it by the time you get toward the end of this process.
Finally, the game is never really done, you just come to a point where the value of the improvement is less than the cost of the time required to achieve it (Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns). Moreover, you might think you’re “done”, and then find out that improvements need to be made either for your peace of mind or because the publisher requires it.
Good luck. And remember: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." --Antoine de Saint-Exup'ery
Summary:
• make a tabletop game, or use a simple level editor to modify an existing videogame
• make something based on a game you know
• reign in your ambition--try to complete a small project, not a large one
• focus on gameplay not prettiness or story
• play the game yourself before anybody else plays, even if it isn’t intended to be a one person game
• iteratively and incrementally playtest and improve the game
• your never really finish
-
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
-
(Originally posted Feb 16 2011)
Nomenclature varies; what many people call games (such as card Solitaire) I call puzzles. Most single-player video games are puzzles, some (such as Pac-Man) with an exact but sometimes very difficult solution. Many Euro-style games are much more puzzles than games, such as the ones called "multi-player solitaire". Players are playing against the non-sentient system, not against each other. At most, the player interaction is of the anticipatory kind, "I'd better take that role before so-and-so gets it".
What brings this on is a game someone brought into the NC State game club recently, Zombie State: Diplomacy of the Dead. The title invokes possibilities, but it falls flat on its face. The game exhibits many of the sins of poor contemporary Euro-style games. Quite apart from virtually no player interaction, which goes far to make it a puzzle rather than a game, there is insufficient justification for the complexity, too many bits for what it does (at least there aren't a mass of cards with minuscule text), much too long for what there is to it: just too clunky. Add to that Tom Vasel's comments that the puzzle is too simple and too dependent on technology dice luck, too obvious, and it seems as though the game is a badly missed opportunity. The resemblance to Pandemic are pretty obvious, and while that isn't bad, there's nothing to justify the much longer game. I did not play (thank heaven, that would have been extraordinarily tedious), but it did tie up five players for several hours.
The question is, when is there justification for the complexity? If complexity is there in service of a story, or of an educational message, if the complexity results in a much richer and more interesting interaction amongst the players, then it can be justified. Substituting complex pieces and rules for substance seems to be a common characteristic of contemporary boardgames.
But I know that reasons for liking games vary immensely, as I've written about in this blog and elsewhere. So I went to boardgamegeek to see what people say.
The people who like it seem to like the semi-cooperative aspects but especially like "getting into the theme". The theme does nothing for me--I've designed two zombie games, but I've only ever watched two zombie movies in my life (well, plus the Resident Evil movies), and the idea that zombies can defeat tanks is just too much to swallow.
It certainly illustrates how slippery the term "fun" is. To me it's deadly dull. To some people it's really "fun". I strongly suspect that those people like puzzles (I despise formal puzzles). One BGG video reviewer who said the game was really fun, played with his buddies, and they all got into the theme. I'm sure he and his buddies had fun with acting out the theme (evidently they helped each other as much as possible), but it's a case of the fun coming from the people, not from the game. (The same thing happens all the time with Monopoly; a mediocre game at best, but people often remember it fondly because of when and who they played it with.)
I think Tom Vasel was being nice about Zombie State when he said something like "it's not a very good game". To me it may be a (barely) acceptable puzzle for cooperative play, but as a *game* it's a bust.
A text review: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/580075/an-exceptionally-misl...
I was so disappointed with the promise of the phrases "Zombie state" and "Diplomacy of the Dead" that I devised, and solo tested three times, Zombie Risk. The zombies are like a disease, and absorb enemy armies as they defeat them. I need some folks to playtest it with real people, now (write to me if you'd like to try). And I have ideas for an actually competitive and interactive game involving world nations, zombies, and vampires...
Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:40 am
[1] Prev « 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 Next » [8]
|
|
