Archive for Brian Cherry
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Next »
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
Well, it's been a very long time since I felt I had anything worthy of saying. Not that what I have to say it worthy of reading... I just felt like saying it.
Let me start by saying that I love the Lords of Waterdeep so far. I have not played it much, but so far it has been a fun, and interesting game. It is a good puzzle to try and figure each time based on which buildings are available. In one game I could NOT get orange cubes, and in the next, they were everywhere and my strategy had to be adjusted accordingly.
When I opened the box I was blown away by the quality of the components, and its storage tray. I will say though, I had a couple of gripes:
A. Using meeples instead of cubes for adventurers would have cranked the theme in this game to 10. As it is, it feels like a cube engine. Just making that small change (like in Agricola) would have turned them from anonymous resources being spent to aquire cards, into adventurers being sent on quests.
B. The Board sucks.
I think I'd better go into more detail for that second point. It sucks a lot.
Now, dont get me wrong, I do enjoy the color scheme used for the Forgotten Realms. It's a watercolor world, and I know that. But city could be brought to life with a few design changes.
1. Move the unbuilt buildings off the board, or at least out of the city boundary. In our games, it often looked like the built building at the bottom right, and the 3 unbuilt ones were in the same row, and therefore the same status. Having them in a special space decorated as a blueprint would have added clarity, and theme for me.
2. Add a small piece of artwork of the building each tile represents, which works together with...
3. Utilize the unused space within the city by placing the 10 avalable building spots within the city. This would a)give the city a sense of growing as the buildings are aquired, and b) make the board look different with each play.
How many times have you finished Carcasonne and just enjoyed seeing how the "board" youve created looks entirely different each time. I loved that A Castle for All Seasons had you transforming a town with each game from unbuilt to finished, but was disappoined that it turns out to be the same town at the end of each game.
The Lords of Waterdeep had an opportunity to have players bulding a unique City of Waterdeep with each play.
Just a few thoughts upon opening, and a couple of playthroughs. Please, tell me what you think.
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
Please.
For the love of God.. or whatever...
can we stop with the My Little Pony stuff?
It wasnt funny when it was Chuck Norris
Neither was the Rick Roll
Or the Trololol - okay... maybe the Trololo was kinda funny.
That is all
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
If you have not had a chance to read yesterdays blog, you may want to catch up before reading on today: [geekurl= http://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/5976/time-is-not-an-ob...][/geekurl]
An now, on to today's topic:
OUR NOW IS ONLY HOW WE PERCEIVE IT
As I mentioned earlier, I believe that the phenomenon we call as "Time" is merely the property of an action.
We can state the properties of an object - The ball is red.
Ask an interior designer, and she might say it is Scarlet
Give the ball to a colorblind person and they might say the ball is grey.
If a child is raised being taught that the color red is called blue, he will say it is a blue ball.
Since color, time, and length are all measurements made by observation they are all subject to error, and interpretation
which is it? It is called whatever you perceive it to be. It IS what it is - the property does not change - merely the perception of it
I propose, that like the observation of color, the observation of time is what is perceived to change (slow, lengthen, stop near light speed, etc)
Furthermore, the Fabric of the Cosmos suggested that all of time is laid out past, present, and future where an observer can slice "now" in whatever way they perceive. However, I believe that it is not a function of other times existing, but merely our perception, which is modified my movement and distance.
Light from far away takes longer to get to us, and therefore we are seeing back in time. If it’s across the room, it’s only a little, fractions of a second. If its across the galaxy we are seeing years into the past. Looking at the stars in the sky shows light that has left at different times for different stars. Some of the stars we see don’t exist anymore, they’ve gone out, and we havent observed it yet. However, the NOW hasn’t changed, merely how we see it. Now, is the action everything is currently doing. It doesn’t matter what it looks like you are doing to me, what you are doing now is now. The problem is, we cant share the information fast enough to know.
The cosmos seems, to us, to move very slowly. But any astronomer will tell you it moves very fast. But the distances are so great, that we can’t perceive it. Were we to sit above the galaxies and watch, we wouldn’t see them move. But, I propose that if we were very large, we could perceive them moving. To someone my size on earth, this large person would be moving too slowly to see. But to the large person the small people would be moving very quickly. They have less space to cover, for their movement, their blood to flow, their breathing. Everything takes less distance to complete, so it appears to move quickly. When our sizes are in synch, our internal-clocks appear to be as well - but only because our clocks are just our perception of the distance we travel through space.
Moving closer to the viewer appears as time changing because the light is arriving, while the mover is moving. Since the speed of light is constant, and not pushed ahead by the viewer, while I walk forward towards the viewer you see me as I was when the light left me when I started AND as I am fractions of a second later when that light left from my next step. You see me at two times - the distortion we see affects the way we perceive time.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise? No. Because noise is what we call the frequency of waves given off that create a vibration in our ears - tuned to only respond to certain frequencies. Therefore, no ears, no sound. There are still waves though. Bats can "see" sound. They visually respond to the waves we call sound. They are different perceptions of an unchanging property. The light we see is waves too - our eyes are just tuned to "see" different waves than our ears are. If we could tune-down our eyes like we can tune a guitar, we should be able to see the waves we hear as sound.
Since the color of an object is determined by the color of light reflecting back into our eyes, someone with different eyes perceives it differently.
To a person with no eyes, is there color?
It has been said that if you reverse the velocity of an object breaking apart, then its theoretically possible to un-break an object. However, this does nothing to rebond an object that has broken - the glass wont fuse back together, its bond is broken.
Again, I would love to hear input from anyone interested in joining in.
Brian
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
Ok. This is WAAAAAY off topic. But, I was watching a very interesting program entitled The Fabric of the Cosmos the other night and it made me think about things I had not thought about in a long time.
I have long been an armchair philosopher-and-theoretical-pysicist, as I'm sure many of you are as well. So, please take what I say with that in mind. I am not educated in these subjects, and would welcome the opinions of those who are. I am merely stating the conclusions I have drawn from the information I have been given. I think these discussions are better suited for an entire site, as these questions run deep, but I'd like to start here with a group of intelligent, open-minded thinkers, such as yourselves.
TIME DOES NOT FLOW
Here's what I think: Time is not an object. Time is a property.
It cannot be travelled like a river. One cannot flow through time, get out of the water, walk upstream, and hop back in at an earlier time.
Here's why I think that:
A Minute is to Time what a Centimeter is to Distance
and
Time is to a Clock what Distance is to a Ruler
So, if a Ruler measures Distance using Centimeters
and, a Clock measures Time using Minutes
then, the Ruler/Clock are tools, measuring properties, using units
More specifically, if Distance is the property of an Object, then Time is the property of an Action. Time is the system of measurement we use to determine the Distance of an action or its "movement through space".
Nor is time an arrow. It does not move forward any more than the color red (another type of property) can move forward. Our measuring system suggests that time moves, but only because the clock does. More accurately, I would suggest that every action would have its own clock - one that starts when the action does, and stops when the action is over (if action ever truly ends). Time that runs continuously is just more convenient than starting a timer whever we do something. Time appears cyclical because it is based on the sun, and seasons - weve given it cyclical properties. The clock and calendar are both cyclical - they start and end, and then restart. They are like stopwatches, timing the day and the year.
We are never static, we are always moving. Even if I sit very still, I am spinning around on the earth. The earth circles the sun, which in turn is circling the galactic center of the milky way, which in turn is moving among the cosmos. We percieve time as moving forward, because we are always in motion.
Next up: OUR NOW IS ONLY HOW WE PERCEIVE IT
Please, add to this discussion. I am curious if I am the only one who feels this way.
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
I was playing A Castle for All Seasons with the Happy Wife yesterday, and noticed something that I hadnt before. Every time we play, our starting 2 cards is the Messenger and the Trader. Both of us, in every game. Why? Because you dont start with enough Resources to build, or enough money to buy a spot at the beginning. So the Stonemason and Bricklayer dont provide much benefit. We could have started Messenger for money and a Worker for the resources, but it makes more sense to us to start with a helper at the carts right away.
This is a similar situation to the beginning of Navegador I discovered with my friend Bill. With 2 players, each player navigates to one of the 2 open zones in order to colonize the next turn. Player 3 has more options, but essentially the first 2 have a very clear optimal move.
These are both games I really enjoy, but each time I play I feel like I would like to skip the first few turns and get to the "real" game.
Luna is similar, in that there are certain moves at the beginning that make sense, and ones that have no purpose in the opening round of the game, but this is compensated by the fact that there are many choices.
I think that ACFAS could have avaoided the opening problem by providing more resources, and money at the starting. While I realize that this may have given starting players and advantage, it could be offset by providing more to the later players.
The map is Navegadors weakness. There is only enough room for a certain number of ships. There are other points in the game where I have very few options because if I do explore a territory that starts Act 2 or 3, then an opponent in a good position can sweep into the lead very quickly. But this is less apparent than the opening moves. It just comes down to "ok, Bill. Which one are you going to?"
Its not a big thing. Just something I noticed. Have you noticed any others? Please comment.
thanks for reading.
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
I spent the last half hour writing a really great "Can games be too easy" article, only to have it deleted when I hit the enter key at an inopportune time (while I was trying to add a game to the "topics discussed").
It was really good too. You'll just have to take my word for it. I'm too pissed off to write it again.
I think I'd better add "rant" to my category list...
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
Essen is both a time of joy, and disappoinment. So many great looking, well reviewed games, dont get added to my wishlist. Why? Because so many of them require 3-5 players.
For example, Ystari was my favorite publisher for quite some time. Every year I looked forward to their new releases. But recently I have been disappointed by the likes of Sylla and Olympos - great looking games that require 3 players to play by the published rules.
I wont buy most games if they require more than 2 players. My wife and I are the main gamers in my home (at least until my children are older), and my gaming friends only meet once or twice a month, so we hardly ever play the same game twice (unless it is named Dominion or 7 Wonders  )
So, why are so many games being released lately that do not support 2 players out of the box? Some great games have been made using 2 player rules that work wonderfully - Fresco and Alhambra spring to mind.
And official 2 player variants published after the fact dont give me much interest in buying the game. Notible exeptions - The Princes of Florence and Puerto Rico, play very well with 2 even though we dont usually.
To be clear, I realize that some games simply cannot play with 2, unless utilizing terrible and awkward automated players, which is no fun. My beef is with the ones that can work with 2, but just dont - yet.
Why do publishers ship games labelled 3-5 players and say, we have not balanaced the 2 player variants yet, but will in the future. Get it right, and then ship it out. How would history remember Monopoly if it couldnt play with just 2?
I do not like using un-official variants, as that feels to me like making up rules for a game, and if I wanted to do that I should not have to pay X dollars to buy a game that doesnt work without community input to make it work.
Good rules of thumb:
If you design a game and it cannot support 2 players, I will not buy it.
If you design a game that may support 2 players at some point in the future, I will not buy it until such time.
If you design a game that supports 2 players, but is merely acceptable (I'm looking at you 7 Wonders!), I will not buy it.
If after release, a game gets great reviews regarding an officially published 2 player variant after the fact, I may buy it.
Oh well. I know this is just one tiny nit to pick on the hairy back of a very good year for games.
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
So, I read through some of the feedback from yesterday's realization that I've been far too invested in this hobby, I started to think about culling my collection.
I want to feel like I did when I only had 20 games - and they were all great. Now when I look at it, I feel like I should be dusting off some of the old games we didnt like the first time, and try them again.
WHY?!?!?!?!? Why would I want to subject myself and my wife to playing something we didnt like? Because I paid for it. I do a LOT of research before buying a game, but I do NO playing beforehand. So, sometimes we end up with games that:
Burger Joint, Batt'l Khaos, Patrician - Didnt play as well as I hoped they would
Alchemy, Horus, Gangster - bought on a whim due to a low price
Portobello Market, Robber Knights, Taluva - Wife doesnt like them so I never get to play
Mykerinos, Attika - Just dont SEE the game. Feels like busywork
Comuni, Neuland - Have rules we need to re-read every time we want to play, or lacks "flow".
So, for a myriad of reasons, these sit, and dont get played. Attika, Patrician, and Neuland will be hard to get rid of because they hold sentimental value of some kind, so maybe I'll cull those last.
Do you know which game really suprised me? Dominion. We never play it. Sure, we enjoy it when we do, but there is ALWAYS something I would rather play. Its partly because my game group loves it, so I get lots of opportunities to play it, with all of their cool expansions. My set feels redundant.
Of course, I will keep all of the games I really enjoy, and games that get played a lot (that I may or may not enjoy).
I will keep some ecause they are good games to play with non-gamers; such as Ticket to Ride, and Witches Brew
I will keep my wife's favorites; like Finca and Aton
I will keep the classics; like Catan, and Carcassone
and all of the expansions for the games I own
Honestly, in the end, I may not cull any because it seems like a lot of work... how do I get rid of them? I'll sell them, I guess, but how?
Anyways, until next time, at least I am eager to do something!!!
Gamer on Overload
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
a Few weeks (read months) back, I mentioned a slump I've been in. It's been a long time since I won a serious game. Why is that? It's probably because I have been approaching the playing of games with the same enthusiam as everything else about gaming... very little. I think I have burnt out a little on gaming as a hobby. This wouldnt be the first time for me to step back after a few years obsessing and say to myself "what was I thinking?" I have too many games. Too many games leads to too many choices about what games to play. Indecision leads to no decision, as I often choose to not play, rather than try to pick a game.
Will it last? I dont think so. I hope not. I love gaming. But right now I would rather be going other stuff. Somewhere between my issues of Spielbox not showing up and Luna being damaged I realized that for a "past-time" I have to MAKE a lot of time to pass with this hobby.
As Essen approaches I expect the excitement to ramp up. In the meantime, I may get rid of a few duds from my collection. That may help me appreciate what Ive got.
So, sorry for the lack of posts. I'll write when I have something more to say!
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
Looking back, two weeks has passed in the blink of an eye. With a 4 month old at home, things are always busy. Add to that Parent Council, and the big one right now; looking for a travel trailer and lot to park it on, and it has been a long summer so far.
Taking some of the feedback from my last game design blog (thank you all for your input), I suddenly fely very motivated to work on another game I have had in the works for quite some time.
The idea came to me in a dream. No, really. When I woke, I said to my wife, "I have to make a prototype". And I did.
I reduced the game down to its core idea. Card driven, area control. For example, Card A allows you to play on any Spot A (which there are sometimes multiples,depending on the letter). When a zone is controlled by a certain majority, you place a token on that zone. When you have 3 control markers in play, they win.
You'll notice that once a player places their marker in a zone, they dont need to fight over that area again, as they do not have to maintain majority.
How was it? It was boring. In my dream, it was the theme that was the glue that held an abstract idea together. But the theme was odd... very odd. It was a euro with zombies. Only they didnt do, zombie stuff.
So, I realized I had to add some theme to my game... and I used the theme from my dream - Victorian London. And the seedy side, at that.
From there I decided that "A" could be one type of person, and B another... all the way to "ZZ", I think it was. Since the names were just placeholders for letters, it was decidedly similar. But, there was a hint of theme. Like chess, the theme was strictly for identification.
What the theme was missing was flavor. If "A" is a "Shopkeeper", then playing one should give you a "shopkeeper" type result. With that, the currency system was born. Several types of currency "money", "food", etc were born, with differing values.
with that, I put a cost on playing certain cards. It made sense that the cards playing at fewer locations would have higher cost - they are more exclusive. And, with that the class-system was introduced to the game, whereas different zones of the board would contain different mixes of characters based on their classes in society. For example, a zone could contain "Rats" and "Beggars", but never with "Lords" or "Judges". 5 zones classed the board from Sewers, to High Society.
It took a long time, but I used some intranet images to touch up the characters on the board. It was needed to get a feel for who these people were without having their card in front of you.
And it was worth it. The board (though very muted in color) portrays the feeling I want to convey with the game. Mechanisms work quietly as the Theme speaks to the players. Some may be quite put off by some of the ugly concepts (eg. Orphans are a form of currency to buy and sell) that seemed prevolent at the time. And, it needs some tweaks. But with the board finally at a stage I am happy with, it feels like a game. A contenst to use these poor, little people for my means... to win.
Now, it just needs some playtesting to balance the card abilities (which have already been tweaked several times to fix some of the stranger interactions). I'll keep you posted as it progresses.
Oh, and I kept the zombie. And it does "zombie-type" stuff now 
thanks for reading,
Brian
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Next »
|
|
