Game: Squint

Thread: Re: Review: Squint

Mike A — 2008-09-22T19:53:09+00:00

The only time I've played Squint with a serious game group we used the sand timers. It was probably the most fun I've ever had playing it. It may have been the particular group, but it was great.

When I play with my kids we don't use the timer. And it's always a lot of fun. If you asked my kids, I'm sure it would be one of their very favorite games overall.

Thread: Review: Squint

bwridge — 2008-09-22T18:02:57+00:00

Squint is another game from Out of the Box Games, the maker of Apples to Apples. Like Apples to Apples, it is billed a fun, light family game that can be played out of the box within minutes. Yes, this much is true, but is it a fun game?

The game components include 72 small, square cards with a variety of shapes on them, such as straight lines, curved lines, circles, half circles, etc. Also included is a sand timer set for 45 seconds, a die, tokens to indicate points, and a good number of double-sided cards with 3 nouns listed on each side. The internals come very nicely in a plastic insert designed specifically for the game. It’s a very nice, appealing package that is not intimidating to new or casual gamers.

]]>

The game requires a fairly large flat surface as the first step in preparation is to spread the tiles out across the table such that most of them can be viewed easily and within arms reach. Once that is done, the game can start. The starting player takes a card and rolls the special 3-sided die (labeled 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3). Each side of the card lists three nouns ranked from easy (#1) to medium (#2) to hard (#3) in terms of complexity. For example, one card says Thumb, Catfish, and Father. The die indicates which noun the player needs to “draw” using the tiles in the center (according the rules, at least; in our group, we let players pick which noun they want to try for). Let’s say, then, that the player rolls a 2 with the card above; his goal is to use the tiles to get the other players to call out “Catfish.” He might then use two circles for eyes, a small triangle for the mouth, straight lines for the top and bottom of the body, and a large triangle for the rear fin. It looks sort of like a fish at this point, so the player could really sell it by finding a way to put whiskers on it. If another player manages to ID the picture both the identifying player and the active player each get a number of points equal to the “value” of the noun as listed on the card. It may sound easy, but there is a catch: the 45-second sand timer is used, giving the players only 45 seconds to try to figure out what the thing is. Once this is complete – whether success or failure – the next player becomes the active player. The game continues like this for a number of agreed-upon rounds with the player with the most points at the end of the game the winner. And that’s the game…

Is it fun? Well, yes and no. The use of tiles to “draw” the pictures is a very nice touch since it allows for the non-artistic among us to participate as equals in a game based on guessing images. And as I said, it works well as a light family game to play after family dinner or on a holiday, as it was designed for.

Nevertheless, it’s hard for me to remove my “Serious Gamer” hat and accept Squint as it is. I found the sand timer to be a bit too restricting; it causes the active player to frantically piece together a picture while the other players are hollering out guesses. Could be fun, I suppose, but I found it resulted in frustratingly low success rates. I would prefer a little bit more time for the active player to “draw” his or her picture on the table. Another issue is scoring… because both the active player and the “guessers” gain points through a successful guess, competitive players could very well freeze out the winning player by refusing to guess when he or she draws. Though I suppose it could be argued that such a competitive group of players is better off playing something else.

But still, criticisms aside, Squint does what it was designed to do pretty well. It’s easy, light, fun for the right group, and very accessible for just about anyone, gamer and non-gamer alike. I would recommend it for people like myself who play games with their family occasionally. Would I bring it to the weekly game night? Probably not…

Image

Martin Ralya — 2008-02-18T23:38:36+00:00

The back of the Squint box

Image

kpetzing — 2007-10-21T16:09:41+00:00

BGG

Image

tonyfung1205 — 2006-11-19T18:08:32+00:00

Game Progress Snapshot - Frankinstein? Voodoo? Bear? Ummm, It's a MONSTER (someone answered correctly). How lovely

Thread: Squint with Three

anderjas — 2006-05-09T17:44:08+00:00

My wife, daughter (teenager) and I played our first game of Squint this weekend. We originally purchased this game as a “party” game after reading Tom Vasel’s review http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/6354 . We intended to play it with a large group of people, five or more. However, my daughter begged us to play after we bought it. Therefore, we sat down for a game with the three of us.

Surprisingly this game works very well with three people and we were able to play a game in about 30 minutes.

If you are looking for a fun, short, party game that works with three people look no further. I would highly recommend Squint to anyone.

Image

Timotheous — 2006-05-05T17:07:10+00:00

Thread: Squint: Session Report

gschloesser — 2006-02-22T03:55:54+00:00

Party games normally don’t make an appearance during our gaming sessions, but Paul & Jennifer requested Squint, an Out of the Box release. Gail was eager to play, too, so Rhonda and I joined the group forming pictures using little symbol cards.

Squint has been described as “Pictionary for folks who can’t draw”. While that comparison does have some merit, I actually think Squint is more difficult. Players are forced to “draw” a picture of an item by assembling various symbols so that their fellow players will recognize and identify the resulting creation. This isn’t easy, especially when forming the more difficult words. The proceedings are made even more difficult by the presence of a timer, which always seems to expire just before someone shouts the correct answer.

Dozens of small, plastic tiles are scattered face-up on the table. Each tile contains lines or various shapes. Each round, players alternate rolling a die depicting values 1 – 3, then consulting the corresponding word or phrase listed on a card. The higher the number rolled, the more difficult the phrase is to form using the symbols. A timer is inverted, and the player scrambles to gather the tiles needed to form the phrase listed on the card.

The rules are quite simple. The active player cannot speak, save replying “yes” or “no” to guesses or inquiries from his fellow players. Nor can the player perform charades in attempts to elicit responses from the other players. While the player can animate or move the tiles, they must maintain contact with the table. These rules are easy to understand, but it is difficult to resist the temptation to make grunting noises or frantically waving your arms while trying to convey the picture to your companions.

If a picture is correctly guessed, both the active player and the player giving the correct response receive chips equal to the difficulty level of the puzzle (1, 2 or 3). This exact procedure is repeated until each player has assembled tiles a set number of times, after which the player with the most chips is victorious.

The game is a decent party game, as it does involve every player on every turn. However, I just find it doesn’t measure up to Pictionary. Many of the phrases are simply too difficult to convey with the symbols provided, and the frustration level rises as a steady stream of incorrect guesses are spewed forth. The free-style drawing inherent in Pictionary allows for much more freedom and creativity, and less frustration. Squint isn’t bad, it just isn’t the game I’d reach for at a party.

Thread: Birthday Squint debut

Terraliptar — 2005-12-01T16:43:15+00:00

I had an early birthday get-together with five friends and decided to debut Squint. I read out the rules but unfortunately everyone had been drinking and they were talking over me or saying things like "We'll just pick it up as we go along". Not a good start.

]]>

Round 1

I began with 'key'. Jim guessed it but Jayar complained that I didn't make it clear which way up the picture was. Hmmm...

Jim had 'thumb' which he couldn't reproduce and none of us thought we could've either.

Jude had 'train' which she created with two squares, each with two small circles underneath. I guessed this and thus began the regular accusation that I had already looked through all the cards and was cheating.

Vicki had 'gun' which she animated and Jude guessed.

Sally had 'book' which she made with two squares and animated opening and closing (with the cards touching the table at all times). I guessed it.

Jayar had 'stove' which nobody guessed.

Round 2

I had 'clown' which Sally guessed. Because I immediately found two shapes to make a smile I was accused of cheating again. I explained that I had used them to make the Lamb Chop picture which I had previously uploaded to BGG.

]]>

Jim had 'toaster' which he animated by having a square pop out of it. I guessed it and received more comments about cheating.

Jude had 'hot dog'. She put two shapes together which looked like a sausage so I guessed that it was hot dog. More accusations. How did I know it was a hot dog? If I thought it looked like a sausage then why didn't I say sausage?

Vicki had 'rectangle' which, amazingly, I guessed.

Sally picked up a card and wasn't happy with the word she got (lasso) so she took the next card which was 'knot'. None of us guessed it and she looked like she had a major sulk coming on.

Jayar had 'whale'. He created a fish shape half submerged in ripples so I guessed it. More suspicious looks.

Round 3

I had 'shoelace'. I couldn't create it and nobody guessed it.

Jim had 'tepee' and so picked up a triangle. Jude guessed it almost immediately.

Jude had 'floor' and created a straight line but none of us knew what it was. Just before the time ran out she used zig-zags to represent stairs leading down to it and I guessed it.

Vicki had 'doorbell' which Jim guessed.

Sally was quite disinterested at this stage and had 'hockey stick'. We initially thought it was a golf club but Jude guessed it just in time.

Jayar had 'beach ball'. He created a beach and water with a circle above it. Jim stunned us all by guessing it.

Final Score

Leonard - 12
Jude - 9
Jim - 8
Sally - 4
Vicki - 4
Jayar - 3

The general opinion was that it was a good game.

Image

belial1134 — 2005-11-13T20:30:54+00:00

Thread: Squint

Octavian — 2005-08-31T03:47:14+00:00

Myself, Joan, Niels, Steffi, and Nick played Squint as our closer for the evening. Squint is similar to pictionary, however instead of drawing freehand you have a set supply of abstract symbols on small square cards that players arrange to get others to say a given word. Words come in three levels of difficulty and a die roll decides which one you must attempt. If someone makes a correct guess both the guesser and the artist score points equal to the difficulty level of the word - a nice way of keeping everyone involved all the time. Whomever has the most points after a set number of times around the table wins.

We played three times around the table. Things started slowly as I rolled a 2 for my first word and was given the task of getting the others to say the word 'spool'. Unfortunately they were convinced that I was depicting some form of raft, thus no points were rewarded. It looked as if Steffi would befall a similar fate, however in the last second before time ran out Joan saw a giraffe in Steffi's cards, earning them both a point apiece. Of the following turns, particularly nice pictures were made depicting a water gun (including muzzle flare for the gun portion!), turtle, vase (which didn't start well, but Joan shifted strategies and soon got the desired response. She later said 'I started trying to make a contemporary vase, but decided a traditional vase might be easier to see' - I agreed) and a very large depiction of a hand that ended with a correct guess of 'wrist' once an arrow was made pointing at the appropriate place.

On Nick's final turn, which was also the final turn of the game, he was behind me by one point in total score. He needed to both roll higher than a 1 AND to have someone other than me guess the word. He succeeded with the first part, getting a two, but ultimately came in second as I was able to guess 'sofa' based on his rough design of people sitting on some piece of furniture watching television.

-MMM

Thread: 5 players, 3 rounds

Spielguy — 2005-08-13T16:37:28+00:00

5 players, 3 rounds, so 15 different shapes. This is charades with shapes. The fifteen shapes we did were:

1. Boquet - Nathan - not guessed
2. Woodpecker - Jim - not guessed
3. Hula Hoop - Sheryl - not guessed
4. Stomach - Shirley - guessed by Sheryl
5. Van - Brent - guessed by Nathan
6. Pearls - Nathan - not guessed
7. Rocket - Nathan - Guessed by Sheryl
8. Glove - Sheryl - guessed but after illegal OJ move without the cards
9. Ears - Shirley - Guessed by Sheryl
10. Centepede - Brent - Not Guessed
11. Pier - Jim - Guessed by Nathan
12. Tent - Nathan - not guessed
13. Notebook - Shirley - not guessed
14. Telescope - Brent - Guessed by Nathan
15. Mountains - Sheryl - Guessed by Nathan

Highlights - Shirley had both stomach and ears and made a full head and body but didn't point towards the specific objects. Still guessed
Sheryl asked for verification if she could animate but then left the card on the table and moved her hands to pantomime.

Nathan 10
Sheryl 6
Shirley 4
Brent 3
Jim 1

Image

l-hansen — 2005-04-19T19:00:42+00:00

English edition from Tactic

Image

l-hansen — 2005-04-19T15:00:22+00:00

Norwegian edition

Image

l-hansen — 2005-04-13T12:13:18+00:00

Finnish edition

Image

l-hansen — 2005-04-13T12:11:33+00:00

Danish edition

Image

Fawkes — 2005-03-23T20:29:30+00:00

So many shapes,but can't make a banana...

Thread: User Review

kimapesan — 2004-12-13T17:42:00+00:00

Squint came to us as the result of exchanging a gift copy of Cranium (which we already had). At the store I went to, Squint was one of the few "party games" available that did not involve trivial knowledge of a specific TV show or that did not involve guessing what color crayon or type of bug other players were. It was clearly moulded on Pictionary, but rather than drawing pictures players had to use a set of abstract lines and squiggles on cards to construct pictures that other players could guess. This instantly made the game more appealing than Pictionary, in which drawing ability really does make a difference.

Squint is meant for three or more players, and each player is on his own - there are no teams in this game. In each round of play, one player rolls a die to determine the level of difficulty for the next picture (between 1 and 3). The player draws a card and looks up the word or term next to that number (and if a 3 was rolled, this is the appropriate time for eye-rolling and "What the..." expressions). Then the player must try to construct a picture of that word or term using a set of tiles that contain merely lines, squiggles, circles, and so on. The other players attempt to guess what it is the player is trying to convey with the picture. The first player to guess correctly scores points for guessing, and the player who made the picture earns points for successfully conveying the concept. Depending on the number of players, each player will get 2 to 4 turns at making pictures, and at the end, naturally, the player with the most points wins.

The concept of using simple lines and curves to build pictures, rather than actually drawing them, is brilliant. No drawing ability is needed for this game, but the ability to see how abstract components can make a concrete picture is paramount here. In addition, players can cover parts of a tile with other tiles, so as to customize parts of a tile for a particular picture. And of course, there is the "animation" factor - the player can move a tile around, essentially animating the picture, if that helps get the point across. These features make Squint an ideal picture game for children to play with adults, or children to play with other children, as well as for purely adult groups.

The scoring system is at once cooperative and competitive -you can't score points without letting someone else score points as well. Overly competitive players will find this difficult to adapt to, but it does mean that all players are involved in every turn of play, as opposed to team play games in which only the players of one team are involved on each turn.

Overall, Squint makes for an enjoyable little game ideal for just about any group of players. Highly recommended as an addition to your game library.

Thread: Session Report

Zambogirl — 2004-09-29T14:07:33+00:00

At the table: Ken, Chris, Steve, Max, Becky

My son (Max) wanted to play a game with my husband, myself and our friends so between more serious games, he brought out Squint and asked if we could play a quick game. I must admit, I don't care for this game much but was happy to oblige Max since he was very polite about asking. Max surprised us by guessing some difficult words. But in the end, Ken prevailed as the winner due to guessing several 2 and 3 point words. I'm convinced he probably kills the competition at Pictionary as well.

Thread: User Review

TomVasel — 2003-06-03T12:57:53+00:00

I'm not a big fan of Pictionary. However, the game, when played with a lot of people having a good time - can be fairly fun. So when I heard about Squint, a type of Pictionary clone, I wasn't too keen on getting it. But I knew that the publisher, Out of the Box Games, had made some incredibly fun games, so I decided to give Squint a try.

So is Squint worth your time? The short answer is if you need a inexpensive filler, then yes. A longer answer follows:

First of all, a short description of game play. Squint comes with 72 small square cards with different simple shapes on them. These shapes include lines, circles, curves, etc. These cards are spread face up all over the middle of the table.

Each player then takes a turn. They draw a "Squint" Card from the box and roll a die. The die has numbers 3 "1"'s, 2 "2"'s, and 1 "3" on it. The die determines which word on the card the player will use, with "1" being the easiest word, and "3" being the hardest.

A small timer is then flipped over, giving the player 45 seconds to get the other players to guess their word. They do this by arranging the picture cards in the middle of the table into a shape or picture. They may not give verbal clues, but may animate their picture or point to part of the picture. If someone can correctly shout out the answer, they and the player making the picture both get the points indicated on the die. (1 point for "1", etc.) If no one figures out the picture before the timer finishes, then no points are awarded. The next player then goes.

Whenever points are awarded, small green chips (Tiddly wink style) are given out for points. After each player has gone a specified number of times, the game ends with the person who has the highest amount of points being the winner!

Comments on the game:

1). Components: Out of the Box Games produces some of the best components in their games. This is a small game, but the stuff inside is top notch! The timer is nicely colored, and is very sturdy. The picture cards are a nice shape, and are quite thick and durable. The "Squint" cards are thinner, but are only used minimally, so it doesn't matter. The die has clear numbers written on it, easy to see. The box is the same size as many of the OOTB game boxes, and is very sturdy, and easy to fit on a shelf. All the components fit superbly in the box. The only components I wasn't pleased with were the scoring chips. They are very small and an ugly pea-green. They are too easy to lose, fall on the floor. I would have preferred bigger, easier to handle chips. But still, it doesn't really detract from the game that much.

2). Rules: As with all OOTB games, the rules are very short, and very easy to understand. They are on 3 pages of laminated thick paper, and are easy to read. The back page I found quite helpful, as it shows a picture of every picture card. Not only is this good for inventory purposes, but it is a handy reference when you are deciding exactly how to build your picture. The rules also offer several tips to help include game play.

3). Ease of Play: It's possible to teach this game in less than a minute. Most people are familiar with Pictionary, and the comparisons are evident. People do differ on the picture cards. Some (like me) like the picture cards much better than drawing a picture. Others would rather draw the picture than search through cards and make a picture with predetermined shapes. It's all a matter of personal taste. Many of the "3" words are also extremely difficult to build with the picture cards.

4). Animation: The little feature that allows you to animate your cards is not only fun, but very useful! For example, when I make a Cannonball, and can show it shooting out of a cannon, it's a lot easier for others to guess it. This is my personal favorite part of the game.

5). Playing area: We found that this game actually plays very well on the floor. As the game name implies, it's actually easier to see the pictures when you squint at them. So, if the pictures are farther down, on the floor, it actually works better.

6). The Fun Factor: Squint is fun. We have a lot of fun playing with it, moving around the picture cards, and animating them. I think for it’s price and easiness to play and teach, many will enjoy the game. However, it lacks a certain “zing” that I’ve found in other party games, like Time’s Up and Apples to Apples. People are interested in playing the game when I suggest it, but they don’t get as excited as they do about other games. Squint is fun, but not massively fun.

However, I still recommend the game. It’s a good party game, and it’s really quick to play. When you have a short, fun game to pull out, you have a wonderful little filler game. It’s not the best filler I’ve played – but it’s quite functional and fun. So try it out and see if you like it!

Tom Vasel

Thread: Session Report

Dan Bosley — 2003-02-27T14:31:40+00:00

And speaking of squinting, we then played Squint, a party game. In a nutshell, this game is basically Pictionary. Only instead of having to draw the word on the card, you instead combine a whole mess of drawing-element cards into a drawing....

There’s about 50 cards or so ( I didn’t actually count them, but there’s a LOT) with drawings on them. Some have straight lines, some have curved lines, some have squares, some have circles etc. etc. etc. So once you have chosen the word you have to “draw”, you then “draw” that word by combining a few of the drawing-element cards together to form an “illustration.”

So not only are you racing the clock trying to get the others to guess what it is you are making, you have to also FIND the drawing-cards you want to use to create the picture you want to create. So the whole table is covered with these spread-out drawing cards.

When someone correctly guesses a word, both the guesser and the card-drawer earn points. All players are playing all the time. You don’t have to sit out while a team member draws, because there are no teams.

The game is fun, and a nice twist on Pictionary. Although I think I like Pictionary better. Even though I won this game of Squint. And like Pictionary, one can earn points by simply being able to make huge leaps in logic in guessing at what something is supposed to be - sometimes with what (to the other players, at least) seems to be impossible psychic ability.

Dan - 6 (winner)
Diane - 5
Toby - 4
Tim - 4
Rick - 3
Bonnie - 2

Thread: Session Report

jdroscha — 2002-12-11T22:16:28+00:00

SQUINTING

Although we only had 4 players, and according to the rules should have played 4 rounds, we decided at the outset to play only 3 rounds.

Joe seemed to pick up on James' brainwaves, getting both "lollipop" and "helmet" within a few seconds each.

Jessica created a supposed frying pan which was quite clearly a microphone (and moving it back and forth as if over the stove, of course, merely made it a wiggling microphone).

When Chris built a "paddle" both James and Joe labelled it aloud in ambiguous order, hence they each earned 1/2 point.

SQUINTERS

7-1/2 James
7 Jessica [1st play]
6 Chris
5-1/2 Joe