Game: Game of Life, The

Thread: Re: Yeah, That's Right: I'm Actually Reviewing 'The Game Of Life'

Fidel77 — 2008-09-25T05:50:41+00:00

reapersaurus wrote:
Ah - you've been here 6 days.
That might explain why you'd dare to point out the good things a game like Life can provide.

Decisions in kid's games are highly overrated on BGG.
The Game of Life takes the youngster on a merry-go-round of gameplay, that is sadly lacking from many BGG-hyped kid's games. Heck, a roller-coaster lacks in decisions but makes up for it in the experience.

I really doubt if many kids will kindly remember the decisions they can make in Hey That's My Fish, but they'll probably fondly recall the trials, successes, and rewards they encountered in a Game of Life.
So true. We had ALOT of fun playing this as kids.

Thread: Re: Yeah, That's Right: I'm Actually Reviewing 'The Game Of Life'

inttruder — 2008-09-18T05:57:21+00:00

reapersaurus wrote:
Heck, a roller-coaster lacks in decisions but makes up for it in the experience.

Nice quote. I think that a lot when I read reviews of games I have really enjoyed but they are not "mechanically sound" according to some.

Thread: Re: Yeah, That's Right: I'm Actually Reviewing 'The Game Of Life'

reapersaurus — 2008-09-18T01:27:15+00:00

Ah - you've been here 6 days.
That might explain why you'd dare to point out the good things a game like Life can provide.

Decisions in kid's games are highly overrated on BGG.
The Game of Life takes the youngster on a merry-go-round of gameplay, that is sadly lacking from many BGG-hyped kid's games. Heck, a roller-coaster lacks in decisions but makes up for it in the experience.

I really doubt if many kids will kindly remember the decisions they can make in Hey That's My Fish, but they'll probably fondly recall the trials, successes, and rewards they encountered in a Game of Life.

Thread: Yeah, That's Right: I'm Actually Reviewing 'The Game Of Life'

TheLightSarcastic — 2008-09-17T20:23:27+00:00

Ah, 'The Game of Life,' staple of the family game rotation. Just about every house seems to have a set in the attic somewhere, and mine was no exception growing up. I loved it as a kid, completely enamored with my little plastic car full of peg-children, but forgot it as most of us do as I got older and more finicky. Let's face it: you spin the wheel thingie, pick it up off the table after it pops out, spin it again more gently, then see if you make or lose money. It's like a slot machine with little station wagons.

But circumstances would lead me to revisit my old friend once again, now older and wiser, or at least more cynical, which is the budget equivalent of wisdom. I was helping my friend Jeanine look after her daughter and a few of her friends, and we decided to go the board game route. I had my heart set on 'Shifting Sands,' but I suspected it might be a difficult sell. Instead, I quietly sat back and let the kids pick. Would it be 'Sorry?' 'Mouse Trap?' One of those eight gazillion Monopoly variants based on the cartoon-of-the-month?

No. It was 'The Game of Life,' my old friend. This was a snazzier new version of the game than I had growing up, but it was obvious that few of the major elements had changed. I rubbed my hands together and prepared to grab my law degree and run the little punks off the road.

To Milton Bradley's credit, they actually made some useful changes to the game to add a bit more spice. They also made a luck-based game even MORE arbitrary, but such is Life. Should you choose to go to college, you'll wind up drawing an occupation and salary card at random. This leads to the amusing scenario of a doctor pulling in $40,000 a year while his artist buddy is making $90,000 selling avant-garde lawn sculptures on E-Bay. Odder still, random spaces on the board can force a career or salary change. You ever wake up one day and find out you're a police officer? These Life designers seem to quietly follow a dark philosophy that life is nothing but capricious insanity.

They certainly don't believe in contraception, as evidence by the absurd number of peg-children we all seemed to have in tow. Young Amanda ended up with so many kids she needed to use a second car to drag them all behind her. Perhaps she had her fourth son sit up on a stack of phone books as he steered his Desoto in the family's mini-caravan. Despite the game's enhanced design, I was heartened to see that Milton Bradley still uses the old-school pink and blue 'children' pegs, which are arguably the most iconic part of the game.

Running a close second, though, is the infamous spinning wheel you use to see how many spaces you move. 'Life' veterans all have war stories of the darn thing spinning out of the cradle about 600 times a game, knocking over little orange cars and sending innocent peg-families sprawling into some goofy space like "buy your uncle's rutabaga farm for $30,000." The spinner on this version was pretty tame, though. Milton Bradley's Spinny-Wheel technicians finally seem to have found a safe design.

Thanks to a functional spinner, the game moves pretty quickly. The girls all had a good time, and Jeanine and I had a good time watching them enjoy themselves. Little touches helped a lot, like the job-specific squares. Landing on a "buy a masterpiece!" square used to mean dumping money at the bank, but if there's a player with the Artist career in play, s/he gets the payola instead. This made the jobs feel a little more interesting, and the card art was cute, too.

Still, the endgame is nothing but dumb luck mixed with a basic addition test, making every game end in something of an anticlimax. This version was especially prone to this, as you could earn these little achievement tokens (I forget exactly what they were called) over the course of the game. When it's time for the final tally, you flip them over and see how much cash you get from them. Again, kind of cute, and it's nice that you accomplished stuff in your fake life besides paydays and rutabaga investments, but it's not much different than picking a winner randomly by pulling names from a hat. I know, I know: it's the bleepin' 'Game of Life.' It's meant to be silly. But I still gotta vent a little.

But even as my brain produced these snide little comments, a good time was had by all. The girls added up their life's savings with unexpected earnestness: these little moguls were in it to win it. Particularly fun achievements - I think one of us discovered Atlantis? - were marvelled at with genuine enthusiasm. And everyone clapped with good sportsmanship as Claire took her little blue car and did a victory lap around the board. If nothing else, the experience marked 'Life' as a step above 'Monopoly' and 'Clue' in the "well, we should play SOMETHING, eh?" sweepstakes.

Obviously, hardcore gamers will have little use for 'Life,' mild improvements or no. But it seemed to soothe three savage girls for its duration, and that is no mean feat. If the kids aren't biting on 'Carcassone,' this one might do the trick.

Image

Trump — 2008-08-06T21:29:36+00:00

On Display at Our Wedding

Image

aleacarv — 2008-07-24T16:57:57+00:00

board and compounds (by brazilian's publisher Estrela)

Thread: Review of a New Core Version of Life (c) 2007

ZackStack — 2008-07-11T04:23:57+00:00

My wife and I were feeling nostalgic so we picked up “The Game of Life” from MB. It looks like the most updated version hasn’t been reviewed yet, so I figured I’d cut my teeth on reviewing and give it a try!

Overview
I hadn’t played this in at least 15 years and the last time I did there were stocks and insurance and calculating taxes… my Mom didn’t care for it because it was “too much like real life.” My wife had played the 40th anniversary edition with the tradable salaries and special job skills. So we were pretty surprised to open this newest version and see the changes in the game (I’ll try to confine my observations to actual game play and ignore some of the more cosmetic changes since the picture will be worth a fair number of words):

Changes for this Edition

Good Stuff –
1. They have changed the board back to one time assembly. My old version was like this, but my wife had always needed to take the silly plastic mountains and buildings off the board to put it away.

2. The track now has several splits that allow you to make some life decisions. From my point of view, the couple of choices you get to make (go to college or not, go back to college later, focus on having a family or not, take the “Risky” Rd or the “Safe” Rte to prepare for retirement) break up the otherwise regular tedium of just spinning the spinner over and over.

3. Speaking of the spinner, they seem to have vastly improved it (dare I say fixed?) We’ve played two games and it didn’t jump off once… though we weren’t playing with any 9 year olds…

4. Salaries are now part of the job description and may not be unrealistically swapped. You just get pay raises throughout your career (or loose your job, or my favorite: go back to college for a new job!)

Bad Stuff –

1. They took away the special job abilities for all but the police officer. It looks like this used to add a nice flavor to each of the jobs.

2. They took away the speculation on home value mechanism. We don’t even see the point of upgrading from your starter home as there is no noticeable game benefit any more.

3. No more insurance at all. I always felt the importance of being insured was a major lesson of the original (and I’ve landed on things that insurance would have paid for a couple of times and missed being able to plan ahead for tornadoes and fires…)

Game Play:

My wife and I have played two games to cure our nostalgia. The first was more interesting as I decided to see if not going to college dooms you in this edition as it used to in the original. I was fortunate enough to draw entertainer and start with a decent salary and no debt. My wife went to college and became a vet, and made a little bit more than me, but started in the hole. We both decided to return to college when we reached the decision square and both chose to have it increase our current wage instead of drawing a new job (and actual risk/reward action that doesn’t involve gambling in this version!). Unfortunately my wife almost immediately lost her job and ended up retiring a childless hairdresser while I kept pulling in the raises and retired a very rich and prolific entertainer. However, in route to retirement Gwen managed to sue me four times so when we counted up our funds and life tiles she was just a hair ahead… but then my blue and pink peg kids gave me retirement presents and pushed me over the top to win by $20K.

Since that was actually kind of fun we decided to play another game. It felt just like I remember: “Doctor wins unless something really bad happens”. I was the Doctor. Nothing bad happened to me. I won in a landslide (Gwen tried entering the work force and went to college later which might have worked had I drawn a less “glorious” profession…). That cured our nostalgia and we’ll probably let it sit on the shelf for a while.

Summary

Its still “The Game of Life” and won’t be winning any acclaim, but I found the changes to make the game a bit more enjoyable (its now two pegs above Monopoly instead of just one in my opinion). We’re actually looking forward to introducing it to our much younger cousins and our baby daughter when she gets old enough.

I rate this a 5 – Boring but tolerable like most games for the young crowd. Your kids should definitely get a kick out of living “Life” and now you might not mind going for the ride (as much...)

Image

ZackStack — 2008-07-09T20:45:34+00:00

Image

ZackStack — 2008-07-09T20:43:53+00:00

Image

ZackStack — 2008-07-09T20:41:09+00:00

Image

marcosriego — 2008-06-09T21:31:40+00:00

Old Brazilian version

Thread: Re: How many rule variants of the Game of Life ?

Will_Douglas — 2008-05-25T03:31:18+00:00

I don't know how many variants there are, but I just picked up a copy. (We saw Hyde and Leo playing it on "That 70's Show" and it brought back memories...)

Anyway, the most fun I had was putting the thing together.

It's just too scripted. Every other move (we generally got high numbers) you hit an orange space and had to stop and do what they said. First you buy a starter house, then a real house, etc. If you get a bad career from the start (I started as a teacher...) you're pretty well screwed. I later changed careers and became a lawyer, but even that wasn't enough to save me.

I'm gonna check with my brother and see if he still has our old 70's era copy. I'm not saying it was the greatest game ever, but I can't get my girlfriend to play Squad Leader.

Image

Dutch Boy — 2008-05-07T05:25:55+00:00

Time To Add A Blue Peg! (LIFE contents note: my infant son not included)

Thread: Re: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

kuhrusty — 2008-05-03T02:01:16+00:00

Unitoch wrote:
My hypothesis is that all of the average payouts will be equal for any board length. The number of times that each number is "best" will skew to the large numbers, but it will be counterbalanced by the fact that when the small numbers are best, they'll pay out more money.
I wasn't seeing the last part, which was why this was mindbending to me--"if they all pay out the same number of times, then how can the larger numbers win more games?" But you're right; on a 25-space track, 1 will win only ~74% as many games as 10, but in the games where it does win, it will pay out ~1.58 times, while 10 will pay out ~1.26 times in the games where 10 wins.

SabreRedleg wrote:
I think if you ran your simulation for fixed track lengths (of say 10, 100, and 1000), you'd find that as the track gets longer, the results results tend to equalize.
Yes, mostly: on 10-, 100-, and 1000-space tracks, 1 wins ~79%, ~87%, and ~97% as many games as 10, respectively. But it seems to bottom out around 73% in the 20-25 area, and then head back up as you approach length 1.

sdiberar wrote:
This is the most counter-intuitive thread of all time.

Cool.
Yeah! But now I think we're in agreement that, regardless of board length, it's better to bet on 10 than 1, right?

(Now, Moberho, I bet she knew higher numbers were better, and she was playing you with that "oh, 9 is my favorite number" business. It's a good thing you guys broke up!)

Thread: Re: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

SabreRedleg — 2008-05-02T20:14:45+00:00

Out of 100,000 runs down tracks of random length (between 5 and 99 spaces), the number of times each number pays out is about the same, but the number of games in which the chosen number was the best choice (i.e. it paid out the most times that game, or tied for most) is significantly biased toward the larger numbers! (Like, 16552 games in which 1 was the best choice, up to 19968 games in which 10 was the best choice!) Does that make sense to anyone?? (The alternative is that there's something wrong with my code, but... let's try to stay within the realm of possibility here, ha ha ha.)

I think this is reasonable, within the constraints you've established. Consider an extreme example - a track 1 space long. On the next spin, each number from 1-10 has a 10% chance of showing up. Whatever the result, the game will end after the next spin. Therefore the number you choose doesn't matter.

How about a track with 10 spaces. The odds say the game will end after 2 spins (the average spin being a 5.5). There is a 10% chance the game will end after 1 spin, and only the 10 pays out. These 10% of games are clear wins for the 10. On any result other than 10, there will be a second spin. There is a 90% chance that the second spin does not match the first spin - meaning it's very likely that 2 different numbers will pay out, and no one gains an advantage. Possibly the game will continue to a third or further round, to the extreme of 10x 1s, but the odds of getting even 2x 1 are much less than the odds of getting 1x 10.

I think if you ran your simulation for fixed track lengths (of say 10, 100, and 1000), you'd find that as the track gets longer, the results results tend to equalize.

Thread: Re: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

Unitoch — 2008-05-02T16:30:44+00:00

kuhrusty wrote:
Erkk, it's time for bed, because my brain isn't working.

Out of 100,000 runs down tracks of random length (between 5 and 99 spaces), the number of times each number pays out is about the same, but the number of games in which the chosen number was the best choice (i.e. it paid out the most times that game, or tied for most) is significantly biased toward the larger numbers! (Like, 16552 games in which 1 was the best choice, up to 19968 games in which 10 was the best choice!) Does that make sense to anyone?? (The alternative is that there's something wrong with my code, but... let's try to stay within the realm of possibility here, ha ha ha.)

So, Moberho, the good news is that you don't have to call her up and apologize, because it looks like she was wrong too.

This example isn't a definitive answer, but I thought it might be interesting to see.

S - stock # chosen
x - spin
x1 - first spin
x2 - second spin
etc..
l - length of board
B - best stock
m - money paid out (in thousands)
m1 - money paid out for stock #1
m2 - money paid out for stock #2
ms - money paid out for stock #s
etc.

[c]Trivial example: l = 1
x = (1, 2, ... 9) are all equivalent and will pay out at the same rate.

Second example: l = 2
if x1 = (2, 3, ..., 9, 10) then
B = x
mx = 1
if x1 = 1 then
if x2 = 1 then
B = 1
m1 = 2
if x2 = (2, 3, ..., 9, 10) then
B = (1, x2)
m1 = 1
mx2 = 1[/c]

In plain english, if the length of the board is two spaces:
90% of the time 1 will not be your best option
1% of the time it will be your (exclusive) best option and pay out $2000
9% of the time it will be tied for your best option with one other number and pay out $1000
average payout: $2000 * 1/100 + $1000 * 9/100 = $110

89% of the time, 9 will not be your best option
10% of the time, 9 will be your (exclusive) best option and pay out $1000
1% of the time, 9 will be tied with 1 for your best option and pay out $1000
average payout: $1000 * 10/100 + $1000 * 1/100 = $110

I don't have the energy to find a formal mathematical proof, but I bet that there's one that could be found inductively here. My hypothesis is that all of the average payouts will be equal for any board length. The number of times that each number is "best" will skew to the large numbers, but it will be counterbalanced by the fact that when the small numbers are best, they'll pay out more money.

So, the takeaway message is that my gut instinct is that all numbers will average the same payout but that 1 is "riskier" - it won't be the best number as often, but when it is, it will pay out more than when 9 is the best number.

Is there a way to put subscripts in BGG? It would make this explanation a lot clearer.

Thread: Re: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

sdiberar — 2008-05-02T16:24:44+00:00

This is the most counter-intuitive thread of all time.

Cool.

Thread: Re: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

kuhrusty — 2008-05-02T15:06:47+00:00

Erkk, it's time for bed, because my brain isn't working.

Out of 100,000 runs down tracks of random length (between 5 and 99 spaces), the number of times each number pays out is about the same, but the number of games in which the chosen number was the best choice (i.e. it paid out the most times that game, or tied for most) is significantly biased toward the larger numbers! (Like, 16552 games in which 1 was the best choice, up to 19968 games in which 10 was the best choice!) Does that make sense to anyone?? (The alternative is that there's something wrong with my code, but... let's try to stay within the realm of possibility here, ha ha ha.)

So, Moberho, the good news is that you don't have to call her up and apologize, because it looks like she was wrong too.

Ncik wrote:
Not worthless, no - even though there might only be 5 squares left, there's still an equal chance of getting 9 on the spinner, even though it'll make your piece overshoot on the board.
(Well, I meant "worth less," as in, I thought 1 would pay off more than 9. I believe I was wrong about that, though.)

Thread: Re: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

Ncik — 2008-05-02T14:57:42+00:00

kuhrusty wrote:
IronMoss wrote:
Probably could write a Monte Carlo simulation to find out . . .
Dammit! Either my code is wrong, or Moberho is wrong, ha ha. The results I'm seeing show roughly the same payout for each number. (And varying the length of the track from 5 spaces to 100 appears to make no difference; I would have thought that 9 would be worth less, for example, if there were only 5 spaces remaining.)

Not worthless, no - even though there might only be 5 squares left, there's still an equal chance of getting 9 on the spinner, even though it'll make your piece overshoot on the board.

And it shouldn't make any statistical difference what number you pick. Whether there's 1 square left or the entire board, each time the spinner spins there's an equal chance for any of the numbers to appear. It doesn't matter whether the additional result is that the piece moves 1 square or 9, when it comes round to the next spin, all the numbers still have equal chance again, and that's the important thing - the spinner will spin X times throughout the game, and for each of them you've an equal chance of any number appearing.

Thread: Re: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

kuhrusty — 2008-05-02T14:27:37+00:00

IronMoss wrote:
Probably could write a Monte Carlo simulation to find out . . .
Dammit! Either my code is wrong, or Moberho is wrong, ha ha. The results I'm seeing show roughly the same payout for each number. (And varying the length of the track from 5 spaces to 100 appears to make no difference; I would have thought that 9 would be worth less, for example, if there were only 5 spaces remaining.)

Thread: Re: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

IronMoss — 2008-05-02T14:06:32+00:00

If a low number is spun . . . potentially there are more future spins for that player before they reach retirement. So, if you are on a terrific hot streak and your low number is hitting, you will potentially have more opportunities to spin more low numbers.

However, if you have that same low number, and only big numbers are appearing, your opportunities for future "1" are diminished without any corresponding benefit, while a high number stock-owning player will benefit.

My intuition tells me there may be a very, very slight advantage over a very large number of plays (i.e., more times than most of us would care to play Life) for having the low number (because game #312 will feature a bunch of consecutive 1s), but not so much to go against a "gut feeling" on a lucky number.

Probably could write a Monte Carlo simulation to find out . . .

Moberho wrote:
Now that she and I are long broken up . . .

For the next girlfriend, I'd probably try Lost Cities, Schotten Totten or Balloon Cup.

Thread: Re: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

kuhrusty — 2008-05-02T14:02:20+00:00

I think Moberho is right. If there are 20 spaces between you and the end of the track, and you invest in 9 and spin three 9s in a row, the game will be over, and your stock will have paid off three times. However, if you invest in 1 and spin three 1s in a row (which is just as likely, right?), your stock will have paid off three times, and you'll still have an average of ~3 more opportunities for it to pay off again. Interesting!

Thread: Re: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

Blott — 2008-05-02T13:27:22+00:00

I think your logic is flawed. The number of spins in a game does not increase the odds of a 1 being spun. I understand your reasoning, I just don't think it's accurate.

Thread: One of Life's Many Paradoxes

Moberho — 2008-05-02T12:43:13+00:00

A friend and I had a discussion over the stocks in Life. If I remember correctly, when you buy a stock, you get a card with a number 1-9, and whenever it is spun, you get money. She selected 9 because it was her lucky number. I selected 1 because I thought I stood to gain the most with that number. My argument was that if nothing but 1s are spun the rest of the game, I will make more than if nothing but 9s are spun the rest of the game. She countered with the argument every number is just as likely to be spun.
Now that she and I are long broken up, I ask you, BGG, does my argument make any sense? Is stock 1 a better investment than stock 9?

Thread: Re: Do I Have to Submit to the Life-Saving Operation?

phlipy — 2008-04-07T17:22:57+00:00

It impresses me once more what loving parents are willing to suffer. Game of Life - the pinnacle of Boardgaming! *note to myself: Thanking my parents for playing this one with me and my brother withount complaint*

Thanks for this long due session report! I really did enjoy it; entertaining.

Thread: Re: huh

skuppage — 2008-04-06T13:39:35+00:00

...but the game description shouldn't describe it as a game of "Skill and Chance for all the family" - as I recall, there are only 2 or 3 actual decisions in the game.

Image

TheThorn — 2008-04-06T09:56:30+00:00

Scan of the board, without the 3D scenery parts

Thread: Re: Do I Have to Submit to the Life-Saving Operation?

timstellmach — 2008-03-06T19:08:30+00:00

IronMoss wrote:
Purely out of curiosity, I had never checked to see if Game of Life permitted same-sex marriages, but since I was playing with a 9 and 7 year-old, it didn’t seem like the time to re-read that section of the rules.

Question: Does Game of Life permit alternate family arrangements?

M2 races through the second half of the board – somehow managing to have a ‘grandchild’ life event despite having no children . . .

Answer: Clearly, yes.

Thread: Do I Have to Submit to the Life-Saving Operation?

IronMoss — 2008-03-06T16:23:12+00:00

Setting

It’s a Sunday night. My wife is out with some old friends, so it’s just the girls and me at home for the evening.

I’m hoping to break out Survive!, which I had just rescued from the thrift shop shelves a few weeks prior. However, they both are locked on a session of Game of Life. My gut reaction is to dissuade them from this selection, as I consider Life one of the worst games in our collection, but I concede to play for two good reasons: most importantly, the girls requested it, and, almost as important, I was still really hurting from a really long trail race the day before and was just thankful that they didn’t request Twister.

Early Game

[MINOR GAME DECISION #1] Older daughter (M2) elects to play with the blue car. Younger daughter (M3), knowing that I prefer to play with red, takes the red car before I can get to it, which leaves me to pick the seldom-used white car. [The poor white car reminds me of something out of a rental car fleet, very generic looking with no options.]

[KEY GAME DECISION #1] Given how long this game usually goes, I assume the ‘bank’ duties as well, as all the rest of the game administration (i.e., shuffling the career cards and house deeds, handling the loan notes) in an attempt to keep everything moving.

[KEY GAME DECISION #2] M2 leads off and decides to bypass college for a career in Tech Support earning $70K. M3 and I burden ourselves with loans and head off to the local university to expand our career opportunities. College pays off for me, as I emerge from medical school as a doctor with a $90K salary. M3 apparently couldn’t handle organic chemistry and had to change majors. Her criminal science degree landed her a job as a lawman and a meager $30K salary.

Game proceeds with minimal significant events . . . and no meaningful decisions . . . until we reach the mandatory marriage space where everyone must stop. We each dutifully took a person representing the opposite sex and placed it in out cars. [Note: Purely out of curiosity, I had never checked to see if Game of Life permitted same-sex marriages, but since I was playing with a 9 and 7 year-old, it didn’t seem like the time to re-read that section of the rules.]

Immediately after acquiring my mandatory wife, I lost my job as a doctor and had to pick up a sales job making $30K less per year. How did I manage to blow that gig? Perhaps I was writing too many prescriptions for myself? I can only imagine what my new mandatory wife thought of that brilliant turn of events. [Note to self: Maybe that’s why we never had any kids to add to my white car during the game.]

[MINOR GAME DECISION #2] At some point, we are able to buy houses. M2 gets a sweet deal on classic looking home. M3, with her smaller salary, can only afford a condo-looking place without taking out additional loans. My lousy real estate agent failed to find me any properties worth buying. So, not only have I lost my job as a doctor, I am also homeless. Life can be so unkind. At least, I’m still drawing a reasonably salary as we zip around the board . . . making no meaningful decisions.

Shortly after the first house purchase, M3 is allowed to switch salaries with another player. She swaps her $30K income for M2’s $70K income. M2 is not pleased. I thought about explaining how she should be happy that her little playing figure still had employment since many of the tech support jobs in this country are being shipped overseas. Sadly, like most of my best material, I knew the humor would be lost on her.

With about half the game over, we can all feel the grind setting in. Spin, move, perform the action the square says, wait for your next turn, repeat . . . Mercifully, with my handling of all the bank transactions (see Key Game Decision #1) and all of us spinning 10s fairly frequently, the game is not moving as slow as it could be. [As the cop, M3 is picking up quite a few $10K payoffs from M2 and me for all the 'speeding tickets' (i.e., rolling 10s).]

In an unusual turn of events, M3 suffers a mid-career change – turning in her gun and badge to pursue professional athletics . . . with no appreciable change in salary. I’m not sure how often middle-aged law enforcement officials transition to being pro-athletes in actual life . . .

M2 races through the second half of the board – somehow managing to have a ‘grandchild’ life event despite having no children . . .

M3 and I are left to finish out life’s journey with a few rough spots. M3 suffers a big financial hit from natural disaster hitting her house. Meanwhile I have to contend with a big expense for ‘life-saving’ surgery. I contemplated not having the surgery and eliminating myself from the game, but the rules don’t seem to want to let you do that.

In the final steps to retirement home row, M3 picks up a big pension payoff (likely from her days on the force). I have no such luck.

Conclusion

After summing up our piles of cash, M3 squeaks out the victory.

M3 $1,035,000
Tim $1,025,000
M2 $920,000

Post-Game Actions

I drop my BGG rating for Game of Life from a 4 to a 3. Yes, it’s a cosmetically attractive game with some cool little bits, but there just is not enough brain activity involved in playing. Other than making the kids do some of the money math, I really have never seen that there’s much here in terms of educational value.

Thread: How many rule variants of the Game of Life ?

Gatekeeper3000 — 2008-02-09T11:55:20+00:00

I was wondering how many Rule Variants of the Game of life are there?

I don't mean "Simpsons Game of Life" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" game of life variants..

I mean just the core game..

I have a copy from the mid 80's when I was a kid, it was heavily used. In the early 90's, I bought a second copy, and the rules were quite different. At the end you no longer got cash for how many kids you had (the value of having children had all but diminished) You also had game of life tokens, I found these rules a bit more random.

I got my niece a copy of the game for her birthday last year (she's 9 and these type of games are up her alley.) However, yet again, the rulse were different...

It seems like every 5-10 years they re-invent the game.

Also I hated the way her game goes in the box. You have to take out all the ramps and buildings, then fold up the board. My two copies, you just fold the board over ontop of itself, and the box of money and other pieces easily fit inbetween the two parts of the board.

Thread: Re: 'Game of Life' tattoo

duchamp — 2008-01-15T17:00:15+00:00

A second ago I found this statement by "Nicole" (whose decoelletee you can see in the OP) in the forum thread concerning the first outlines for this piece of pop-art:

"its a joke. . .its a long running joke for me with some friends that i don`t really get to see anymore, “this game sucks” was something that we said about anything that we got frustrated with and the like. its not meant to be negative, its a joke! the board game sucks, true, and at times life (actual life) sucks, everyone thinks so at some point. . . but its not a “hey i’m gonna go kill myself” thing. i love it. its funny to me, and i’m more than overjoyed to have it. i dont think of it as negative, tho i can see how it could be taken that way."

Her own entry linked from the forum:

http://iam.bmezine.com/?nicole+inman

Thread: Re: 'Game of Life' tattoo

duchamp — 2008-01-15T16:52:04+00:00

I think, this image is a very valuable contribution to this site, especially for the more philosophically interested boardgame-lovers. It shows the fatal mixture of mainstream seductions in life, the confusion of a youth between devotion and refusal of the modern world - compressed in a single shot.

All the things we as boardgamers thought to overcome - "the curses of our time" (to cite the "Bard of Stratford" here): Greed, Careers, the obsession with money combined with cheap thrilling easy riders like this young woman, been painfully painted under her skin to please the crowd - or her own underdeveloped self-esteem ...

... let`s fight this "Game of Life" - but wait, regarded a bit more dialectically, the tattoo itself says: "This Game sucks!", so:

It is a comment to life altogether, right? To all of our mediocre mainstream lives, as we live them here and now.

And, to cite the "Dead Kennedys": "Why don`t you take your social regulations and shove`em up your ass?" Isn`t this the precise formula, this young, intelligent lady wants to disclose the people staring at her, as if she would be an animal in a zoo?

There is more in this than meets the eye at first glance, and should be "pic of the month"!

Please, whoever submitted that - ask via the original website for permission, if not already done and submit it again and again, put it into your personal gallery, so people can give it thumbs and start some heavy thinking!

The fight against stupidity has just begun!

Thread: Re: 'Game of Life' tattoo

timstellmach — 2008-01-15T14:59:16+00:00

DarkAvatar wrote:
Nothing wrong with a picture like this being here , that's what the mature tag is for and it is board-game related (just as much related as the cat in box pics that get added all the time).

Yeah! This picture is just as good as all those other pictures that shouldn't be here either!

Not a good argument.

Thread: Re: 'Game of Life' tattoo

timstellmach — 2008-01-15T14:57:42+00:00

DKahnt wrote:
..there was a reason I rejected that pic in the GeekMod...

The watermark, right?

Thread: Re: 'Game of Life' tattoo

lmyrick — 2008-01-15T14:03:18+00:00

duchamp wrote:
"Mature"!? There are not even nipples!

I mean, this is a decolletée, so what - in summer, half of the females walk around in public like that - and I don`t mean the tattoo.

Question: Would you go out or whatever with a person tattooed like this - no matter, if female or male? I mean, if you like that game, you always have to read it sucks, and if you don`t, you have to see it all the time!

I would say, bad choice for such a prominent place of your body!

yeah...bad bad idea for a tattoo...but great great pic for BGG

Thread: Re: 'Game of Life' tattoo

DKahnt — 2008-01-15T13:59:59+00:00

lmyrick wrote:
DKahnt wrote:
..there was a reason I rejected that pic in the GeekMod...

-DK

That image should totally be accepted.

Did the uploader take the pic himself or have permission to upload it here?

-DK

Thread: Re: 'Game of Life' tattoo

duchamp — 2008-01-15T13:01:32+00:00

"Mature"!? There are not even nipples!

I mean, this is a decolletée, so what - in summer, half of the females walk around in public like that - and I don`t mean the tattoo.

Question: Would you go out or whatever with a person tattooed like this - no matter, if female or male? I mean, if you like that game, you always have to read it sucks, and if you don`t, you have to see it all the time!

I would say, bad choice for such a prominent place of your body!

Thread: Re: 'Game of Life' tattoo

DarkAvatar — 2008-01-15T06:31:25+00:00

Nothing wrong with a picture like this being here , that's what the mature tag is for and it is board-game related (just as much related as the cat in box pics that get added all the time). If you don't like it then don't look at pictures with a mature tag.

Thread: Re: 'Game of Life' tattoo

lmyrick — 2008-01-15T05:31:10+00:00

DKahnt wrote:
..there was a reason I rejected that pic in the GeekMod...

-DK

That image should totally be accepted.

Thread: Re: 'Game of Life' tattoo

DKahnt — 2008-01-15T04:53:51+00:00

..there was a reason I rejected that pic in the GeekMod...

-DK

Thread: 'Game of Life' tattoo

skwm — 2008-01-15T04:49:46+00:00

http://modblog.bmezine.com/2008/01/13/game-of-life-tattoo-up...

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-01-10T20:57:48+00:00

The Game of Life - Front Box

Image

TVis — 2007-12-14T14:15:19+00:00

Thread: big money

tornspace — 2007-09-25T05:03:32+00:00

I like to get lawyer or doctor for a big salary.

Also, when you bet on the numbers, risk as much as you can!

Thread: Re: Game of Life - A general perspective

Ratio — 2007-09-17T14:56:45+00:00

My girlfriend currently owns the game, and we play it almost everytime i head to her place during the weekend. We still enjoy the game for the job abilities and the different wage combinations we can have, and when we want to get into some really light-gaming.

We especially get a kick when there is a huge wage difference and the lower-paid player gets to swap wage cards with the other person. However, I usually get the bad side of the deal; she always manages to swap our cards again, after a prior swap where I then have the higher-paying wage card.

Edited for typos.

Thread: Re: Game of Life - A general perspective

Jaggeh — 2007-09-17T09:45:44+00:00

My parents bought this one when I was a kid - and I remember liking it. But I was a kid.

Not sure how it would hold up now

However, I now play Eurogames now despite 'family' board games when I was younger. So as long as you find fun games for kids gaming often stays in the blood

Thread: Re: huh

SteveK2 — 2007-08-22T08:51:17+00:00

It's popular with the publishers because it earns them a steady, relatively risk-free income from a product they can mass produce.

It's popular with the retailers because they know it will sell.

It's popular with the purchasers (parents, relatives) because they recognise the name and can buy with confidence.

I guess it's popular with most young players because it's kind of similar to other games they've played, but different enough to be interesting.

That's a lot of "popular".

Thread: Re: huh

RDReilly — 2007-08-21T22:06:13+00:00

We played this a fair amount when I was a kid. I think, in addition to the cool 3D board, we liked it because it seemed to tell a story of sorts--the story of a life--and in that sense was less abstract than a lot of other games. We could imagine, in other words, that this is what one day might happen to us: we would go to college, get a job, buy insurance, write a novel, etc. etc. And as I recall it was a fairly happy story: whether one won or lost the game, nothing really terrible happened during the game--did it?--like having one's children die in a car accident, or getting AIDS. Instead one could look forward to making lots of money (obviously a good thing from a kids point of view, since we never had as much as we would have liked); the only real question was how much we would make.

Thread: Re: huh

Eldard — 2007-08-21T21:20:30+00:00

Being all of about 7 years old when The Game of Life first appeared, I can tell you that it had tremendous appeal from the perspective of merely looking different.

1) It had a rather neat spinner vice dice or the traditional flat-metal needle-type spinner.

2) It was 3-D! Neat buildings and mountains.

3) It had money, and insurance, and stocks, and Share the Wealth . . . WOW!

Back in those days, boardgames were advertised on TV, particularly on Saturdays during kid programing. We were really excited by the ad for this game --- it was very effective in that sense.

Naturally, the fun wears off after so many plays, but against competition like Monopoly, Sorry, Careers, Clue, etc., it seemed different. And like those other games, it has remained in print near continuously (as far as I can figure) since its debut.

Thread: Re: huh

Driver 8 — 2007-08-21T21:19:08+00:00

Are you playing this game now for the first time? Imagine what the rest of us who grew up with this game had to go through.

Thread: Re: huh

wmshub — 2007-08-21T21:18:18+00:00

zeruf wrote:
What I don't get is why this game became so popular when it has absolutely zzzzzziiiipppp strategy!!!! I mean sure it's kinda cool how you go through life and become a multi millionare but it is all LUCK! Imagine if they had a game of life tournament! That would be funnySince when did strategy and mass market appeal have anything in common?

This game became popular because it's fun to say "Wheee! I get my 5th kid!"

Well, it's fun if you're the right age and the right mindset, that is...

Thread: Re: huh

DKahnt — 2007-08-21T21:16:36+00:00

zeruf wrote:
Imagine if they had a game of life tournament! That would be funny

Its called Russian Roulette.

-DK

Thread: huh

zeruf — 2007-08-21T21:09:36+00:00

What I don't get is why this game became so popular when it has absolutely zzzzzziiiipppp strategy!!!! I mean sure it's kinda cool how you go through life and become a multi millionare but it is all LUCK! Imagine if they had a game of life tournament! That would be funny

Thread: Re: Game of Life - A general perspective

Phil68 — 2007-08-13T20:21:08+00:00

My son bought this at the weekend. It was his first game purchase with his own money (he's 8 years old). I'd like him to be more interested in Euro games but it's his decision and he enjoyed playing it, which is what it's all about after all.

His choice boiled down to this or Monopoly and, on balance, I'm hsppier he bought this. Games with a definite end point is a big plus when playing with kids!

Thread: Re: Game of Life - A general perspective

Rat King 64 — 2007-08-13T17:12:35+00:00

My wife and I recently picked up a copy of this game. Toys'R'Us was having a sale on Hasbro games and my wife spotted it in the flyer. She loved The Game of Life as kid and thought it would be cool to get a copy that we can play with our kids someday. I remember as we were standing in line at the cash that I was thinking 'Jeez, I hope noboby from the game club sees me with this.' There is a very strong sentiment among the euro gamers I know that the worst fate imaginable is to be forced to play some mass-produced Hasbro game like Monopoly or Clue. They would rather have their finger nails pulled out one at a time. For the most part I agree (I hate Monopoly and Scrabble), however, I also understand that if I want my friends and family to play my fancy designer games then sometimes i need to be considerate and play their games as well. So we bought The Game of Life and took it home. It sat unplayed for a few weeks (with the shrink wrap still on) and then eventually came out one night for my wife and I to play a 2 player game.

My assessment is that The Game of Life is more fun than Monopoly for all the reasons that were described in the review. The game has a fixed length and there are some decisions that need to be made at various points in the game. Overall its a still a pretty shallow experience, and the luck factor is very high, but I am sure that we will have fun playing it with our kids.

Thread: Re: Game of Life - A general perspective

out4blood — 2007-08-08T21:28:48+00:00

Ratio wrote:
To end off, I would strongly recommend this game to people who wish to play a simple board game—Game of Life is easy and quick to play, and its main strength is its board-defined time limit which prevents the game from dragging on too long a time.

I fear this review was written with all sincerity.

Thread: Game of Life - A general perspective

Ratio — 2007-08-08T16:17:33+00:00

GAME OF LIFE - MY REVIEW

History:
My girlfriend bought this from the local bookstore and introduced me to it soon after. Though I knew this would be a roll-and-move, richest-player-wins game like Monopoly, I was willing to give it a try because of the synopsis on the box rear which implied that players would have a wider variety of choices to make.

Gameplay:
The game board shows a 1-way track with a definite start and end point. At the start point, players can decide if they wish to go down the short university track or begin working immediately. Players who take the former can get a degree after they reach the end of the track, and they will have a chance of getting a high paying job with this degree; the downside is that these players begin the game in debt. On the other hand, players who choose to start work immediately will go down a different starting path where they can begin the game debt-free and a job. Players have the option to change their jobs during the game, provided they land on a square that allows them to do just that.

Jobs are an important facet of this game because the type of job each player has will determine how much income he or she can get. Also, there are board spaces which have symbols that can be found on the job cards—players who lend on these spaces will have to make payments to the player who has the job with that symbol. In addition, each job has a special effect which is present during the entire game; for instance, the player with the "Policeman" job can collect from any player who spins a "10" on the roulette-wheel dice substitute as a penalty for "speeding".

Along the way, players have the opportunity to get married, have kids and purchase a residential property. These can either be a boon or bane, depending on the squares that their playing pieces land on. Players can also purchase insurance to protect their properties from losses if they should land on a square that penalizes them for owning property, or purchase investments to boost their income—these players collect from the bank whenever any player spins the number on the wheel that is reflected on their investment card.

My Thoughts:
Apart from the mechanics, Game of Life is truly a different game from Monopoly and definitely much more enjoyable, at least to me. Firstly, it has a definite end-point which in turn sets a limit on the amount of time needed to finish a game round. Secondly, there are more interesting choices to be made in Game of Life which are absent in Monopoly; as simple as these choices appear to be, they add a lot of variety in this game and this greatly enhances its replayability. Spinning the roulette wheel can be a blast, especially if any player holds the "Technician" job which allows him or her to collect from the bank if the detachable wheel is spinned out of its base. To me, this is the most profitable job to have, especially since the company I play with has had a poor spinning record with the wheel.

To end off, I would strongly recommend this game to people who wish to play a simple board game—Game of Life is easy and quick to play, and its main strength is its board-defined time limit which prevents the game from dragging on too long a time.

Thread: Re: Seperate "The Checkered Game of Life"

reapersaurus — 2007-06-25T04:04:15+00:00

agreed.
They are IMO not the same game - different gameplay (AFAIK), different bits, different rules.... well, that about covers it - it's a different game.

Thread: Seperate "The Checkered Game of Life"

Aldaron — 2007-05-27T18:33:00+00:00

The entries for the post 1960 game and the earlier (and quite distinct) "Checkered Game of Life" should be distinct. These are two very different games, with distinct histories.

]]>

Thread: Re: 1961 version rules for The Game of Life?

WhiteKnight85 — 2006-11-22T06:26:36+00:00

I just now saw this thread.

I've got the 1961 version also. Are you still looking for the rules? If so, I can try scanning them for you. I'm kind of busy this week, so it might be a few days ... but then again you've already waited a few months.

Let me know if you still want them, and I'll try to get to it soon.