|
Couples Games - Our experiences with 2-player games
|
|
|
So I'm a gamer, and my fiance is less so (although I've certainly been pulling her in). Much of my gaming is done with just the two of us. In fact, my desire to game has pushed us to try some bigger games and some games that don't work well with just two. I'm a pretty lucky guy because she's more than accomodating, even when she isn't horribly interested. Still, we've certainly had some hits and misses. In the past year or so I've converted my Magic cards into lots of boardgames. I'd like to share some of our thoughts. We have some requirements for our couples games: 1) Simple Rules - She's willing to sit through rules and play new games, but she'd prefer to just play. Anything that has too many fiddly rules (or just too many rules) just isn't going to work. 2) Simple Play - She doesn't want to have to remember the 12 different things she can do each turn. If the decision trees are too expansive, she'll just shut down. She also isn't interested in she can't get a quick feel for what she should be doing strategy-wise. If the game is too open then it's often too daunting. 3) Reasonable Playing Time - She'll sit for half an hour. I can even get her to sit for an hour to an hour and a half if a game is engaging. Monster games that take longer just wear on her. 4) Something she can win - I'm more math minded and much more experienced with gaming, so the game needs to be set up so that she still has a fair shot. It's no fun playing when you don't even have a chance. 5) No brain burning - Games are meant to be fun, not homework. She'll bog in analalytical paralysis or just shut down if the game is too thinky. I tend to not like these games either. 6) Theme a plus, but not necessary - Neither of us will turn down a game due to lack of theme (or a theme we don't like). But a good theme is certainly a plus in getting her to play. 7) Some room for Strategy - For me, a game needs to have some room for strategy or I just get bored. It's tough to balance this one with #4, since the more room for strategy there is the better I typically do. Edit: 8) Forgiving - This is a new one, and it's quite possibly the most important. The game must be forgiving. She has no interest in playing a game that's going to punish her for suboptimal moves. She plays for fun, not to make perfect decisions or look ahead ten moves. So without further ado, here's a bunch of games we've played together and how they faired for us. Maybe it'll be of some help to someone out there.
|
|
The items in this GeekList are ordered alphabetically by title
|
Posted Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:01 am
Edited Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:21 am
|
|
|
|
|
To be totally fair, I just think this game is dumb. It's highly random and there just isn't enough strategy. Eventually it comes down to who draws the necessary tile first, because it's too tough to fundamentally change your path. She likes this game, and I'll play it because of that. But this is one of those games that just grates on me.
 if I'm in a generous mood,  otherwise
|
|
|
|
This is a marginal bluffing game. She liked it for the crazy components, I thought it was okay for the mechanics. Still, we rarely pull this out. Mediocre game that's just not a hit.
|
3.
Board Game: Acquire
[Average Rating:7.51 Overall Rank:59]
|
|
|
|
We both enjoy this game, but the random shareholder in the 2-player variant is just too luck ridden. It was so much randomness that even she took issue with it. We love this game, but it just doesn't work all that well with two.
|
|
|
|
A short and colorful game of timing and bluffing. I think this one is refreshingly original and can lend to interesting decisions. She likes it to, but it isn't one of her absolute favorites.
|
|
|
|
This was (obviously) a thrift store find. It's not a terrible game, even with two. It's not spectacular though. It has a lot of luck, but still a bit of room for smart play. Realistically we'd rather be playing Lost Cities or Battle Line.
if you can get it for $1, otherwise
|
|
|
|
Since we like Puerto Rico, I thought this might be a decent way to transition to more thematic (and bits-heavy) American games. Our first game consisted of her launching an attack on turn one. I won the glorified rock, scissors, paper combat. From this turn one setback I was able to shut down her army and completely decimate her resources, ruining any chance she had of raising an army to fight me. She literally was out on turn 1. The unique aspect of this game is the combat, and neither of us liked it. Due to how heavy the game is we haven't given it much more of a shot as a couples game.
|
|
|
|
We played the variant worked out on here in the forums. Basically, half the board (change one yellow to purple, or vice versa) and when a role is chosen it can't be chosen the next round. The game was more than servicable, but the auction and role selection becomes much less important. It's easier to play against one person than three or four as well. Basically, playing with 2 takes Age of Steam and strips out a lot of the gamer elements. Instead it's all about the track laying and good delivery, with the other stuff playing much more of a side role. For the purposes of playing with my girlfriend, that suits us just fine. She likes laying the track and moving the cubes much more than stuff like auction anyway. Age of Steam is obviously a game best with more than 2, but with two it becomes lighter and better suited for a longer couples game.
|
|
|
|
Bohnanza isn't really meant as a two-player game. That said, we've played it a decent amount that way. It's fairly autopilot. Al Cabohne is supposedly a streamlining of the two player Bohnanza. I actually find it worse than the original with just two. There's fewer types of beans, so the game has a lot more luck of the draw in pulling back beans from the discard. Al Cabohne has the upshot of coming with an okay solitaire variant. Bohnanza has the upshot of coming with a good and light trading game for 4-7. Go with the original.
|
|
|
|
I don't know why in the world we bothered to try this with two. It was pointless.
|
|
|
|
Alexander the Great is a very tight game. The play is subtle and the moves calculated. Definitely a gamers game. For the two of us it wasn't pulling teeth, but it wasn't a great experience. You have to really think to try and pull ahead in this one, and it was just too obtuse for her to enjoy. Not to mention Area majority is pretty static with two to begin with.
|
|
|
|
I don't think Alexandros is designed as a two-player. It didn't present enough interesting decisions for me, and it lacked the fun factor for her.
|
|
|
|
We think this one is fun. It's not fascinating, but it's fun. It's colorful, has some strategy, plays fairly well with two and isn't heavy. It matches our needs fairly well (although neither of us are particularly in love with it).
|
|
|
|
The two player variant with neutral huts is pretty good. This game is sort of Ticket To Ride like, but has money management instead of set collecting. I'd say it works as a 2-player in the same capacity that Ticket to Ride does. It's a fixup, no doubt, and better with more but it's still servicable. The game is colorful and has a neat theme. We both think it works pretty well as a couples game.
|
|
|
|
I gotta be honest, for a silly two player connection game we'd much rather be playing Metro. Perhaps this is the gamer's fix for Metro, but I don't think the extra stuff is necessary for a couples game. Metro is silly and random and has little planning, that's a good couples game in my book. This just sucks the life out of it as a two player.
|
|
|
|
Every time we played this, she would ask we why weren't just playing Carcassonne. I didn't have an answer. Repeated plays improved things a bit in my eyes, but it just nowhere near as fun or interesting as Carcassonne in hers.
|
|
|
|
The rulebook terrified her on this one. I explained that 75% of it was foreign translations. Still, the text was tiny and there was a lot to get down. This was one of those games that we just wanted to start playing but the rules went on and on. We expected things to be a lot more streamlined. After playing a few times the game is merely okay with two. With more the game becomes a bit more fun and choatic. With two it wasn't worth it.
|
|
|
|
It's a Carcassonne variant, which means she's predisposed. That being said, I think it's a darn good Carcassonne variant. It has the easy field scoring from Hunters and Gatherers and lets you move the ark when you don't want to place a meeple. I think this game is better with three, but it's definitely solid. If you like playing versions of Carcassonne with two, this is a no-brainer.
|
|
|
|
All things considered Atlanteon is a dry little placement game. It's strategy comes from crunching the numbers on what your opponent can do with his remaining tiles. Not a lot there to sustain a game, but perhaps enough to sustain a 10 minute game. She didn't initially think much of it, but I was intrigued enough to request further plays. Then, in a moment I'm very proud of (and yet quite ashamed by), she caught me completly offguard and blindsided me with a win halfway through the game. Not joking here ... she caught me so offguard my jaw dropped and I went and moped in a corner for the evening. Moral of the story is that she'll play Atlanteon whenever I want to now.
|
|
|
|
For two players there are much better set collecting games. This one was just boring for both of us. It's not designed for two, so don't bother. That said we didn't hate it. There's just no compelling reason to play it with two.
|
|
|
|
I really think this game has potential. There's a lot of neat stuff in it that you don't normally see in a two-player. That said, this game is quite unforgiving. It's an elimination game where outplaying sets you more and more ahead. I like it, but it's just too confrontational for her.
|
21.
Board Game: Aton
[Average Rating:7.10 Overall Rank:269]
|
|
|
|
The play in Aton is simple enough that she isn't confused by it. It also has enough going on that I'm not bored by it. I don't think Aton was designed as a couples two player. Probably more as a gamers two-player. That said she doesn't mind it. The choices are fairly small and the gameplay is quick.
|
|
|
|
Great toy-factor. She thinks these are utterly stupid. She's also not as good of a shot as I am  I could really see this going either way as a couples thing, but for us she just rolls her eyes when I come home with more.
|
23.
Board Game: Attika
[Average Rating:7.19 Overall Rank:160]
|
|
Posted Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:20 am
.
Another keeper here--can't really understand her difficulty with these rules since she could handle WotR(?!). Admittedly, as with most race games, it's not too great with just two. 
No, it's not well deep, but it's not Spice Girl shallow, either. IMO, of course.