×
Coming the Week of July 15th (12 Jul 2019)

Seal Team Flix and Campy Creatures Reviews, a second look at Tiny Towns, Brainwaves Podcast on Megagames, Tank & DPS News and more TBA.

A Seat at the Table: Serious Games

More
20 Mar 2019 09:16 #294106 by Vysetron
I'm not even going to entertain the rock paper scissors comparison. It's absurd at best and straight up disingenuous at worst. If your experience with interactive games genuinely comes down to throwing random results and you need heaps of extraneous mechanisms to make it feel worthwhile I feel sorry for you. Try playing with other people.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Shellhead, Frohike, Colorcrayons

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Mar 2019 09:48 #294111 by Colorcrayons

JonathanVolk wrote: Anyway, not sure you can divide the Siskel/Ebert differences that cleanly. Ebert loved serious film too. Ebert watched broadly and with constant curiosity, which we might all take to heart. I still go back and watch the outtakes of them roasting each other—and Ebert was, hands down, the better roaster.


I still recall sometime in the 80's as a kid watching them on WTTW in Chicago, and Ebert jokingly mocking Siskel for the rating he gave on the current movie being reviewed during that episode.

It basically boiled down to "So you'll rate this poorly, yet you believe that 'Saturday Night Fever' is the best movie ever made."

A short discussion about that ensues qualifying his rating, etc., revealing that Siskel loved that movie so much, that he actually bought the polyester disco outfit that Travolta wore in Saturday Night Fever.

For all the art he wanted to see in film, Siskel had the heart of an Ameritrasher, it seems.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Frohike, Vysetron, Sulla

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Mar 2019 09:53 - 20 Mar 2019 11:55 #294112 by ubarose

PROJ wrote:

ubarose wrote: @PROJ

I think perhaps my statement was a bit ambiguous. It isn’t the in game interaction that is necessarily complex, but the human interaction above the table, so to speak, that is complex and is interesting to me. The actual action of throwing paper isn’t the interesting part. It’s can I predict that you will throw paper, or manipulate you, misdirect you, or negotiate, or bluff, or lure, or strong arm you into throwing paper? And can you do the same to me?

Then cut out the middleman and just play rock paper scissors, because that's what it sounds like you want. Rock paper scissors, however, is uninteresting because there are no mathematical obfuscations to make the interaction more than a basic guessing game with a bit of prediction, which is deeply unsatisfying for most people. Any other game, though, is just differing degrees of rock paper scissors obfuscated by math on top of it, which dilutes the purity of player interaction. The only difference is degrees.

It's amazing how other people in response have completely missed the point in my original post. I pretty clearly stated that the interaction from games with less overt interactive mechanics is deeper, richer, and more intricate, if you bother to spend the time to study them beyond a surface level. You are no longer bluffing with rock vs. paper, you're bluffing with your entire valuation model of an intractably difficult system vs. mine. I did not say "math is better than humans" or some other nonsense.


I agree with your later statement. Your second paragraph is very well put. My original statement was in reference to Gloomhaven, which removes the human complexity. Fighting the AI just feels fiddly, procedural and generally uninteresting to me. Some people might think Gloomhaven is complicated due to the amount of rules and the fiddliness, but once you get the procedure down, it really isn't that complicated. Without a human opponent it just feels procedural to me.

ETA: So yeah, if you remove the human opponent you reduce the complexity of the game significantly. For example, I find Agricola, even though the player interaction is limited, a more complex game than Gloomhaven or Arkham Horror.
Last edit: 20 Mar 2019 11:55 by ubarose.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Frohike, GorillaGrody, Vysetron

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Mar 2019 10:04 #294114 by JonathanVolk
Well, Siskel wasn’t wrong. Saturday Night Fever is great.

Ebert had messier, wilder tastes, maybe—which led him to the sublime trash of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. I miss them both, and I think that the critic as celebrity, which they didn’t invent but certainly became the most famous examples of, wouldn’t be possible in 2019.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Vysetron, Sulla

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Mar 2019 13:24 - 20 Mar 2019 13:25 #294133 by ubarose
One of our members who is too lazy to logon and post in this discussion made a good point in a Facebook discussion on this article:

If the design is prohibitive (and in this case it has a lot of rules, it has a huge set-up time, it is expensive, and a legacy game so it has to be purchased new) then only the people that want to play that game will go through the trouble to experience it and rate it.


People are more likely to play shorter, easier to learn games when they are uncertain as to whether they will like it, but people won't do the same with a more "prohibitive" game. Jonathan himself points out that he hasn't played Gloomhaven because he already kinda knows he won't like it. This could account in part for BGG's "complexity bias."
Last edit: 20 Mar 2019 13:25 by ubarose.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Frohike

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Mar 2019 14:17 #294138 by Sagrilarus

ubarose wrote: One of our members who is too lazy to logon and post in this discussion made a good point in a Facebook discussion on this article:

If the design is prohibitive (and in this case it has a lot of rules, it has a huge set-up time, it is expensive, and a legacy game so it has to be purchased new) then only the people that want to play that game will go through the trouble to experience it and rate it.


People are more likely to play shorter, easier to learn games when they are uncertain as to whether they will like it, but people won't do the same with a more "prohibitive" game. Jonathan himself points out that he hasn't played Gloomhaven because he already kinda knows he won't like it. This could account in part for BGG's "complexity bias."


More than that, there's an Emperor's New Clothes effect, where you're subconsciously adverse to not liking something that you dropped a C-note on. You don't care to admit that you spent so much on so little, even to yourself.
The following user(s) said Thank You: HiveGod, boothwah, Vysetron, n815e

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Mar 2019 16:06 #294141 by mads b.
One of the reasons Gloomhaven is so popular is because it's fucking impressive. The scope of the game is enourmous, the differenct classes play very differently, and the more I play the game, the more I see of the monsters, the more they differ.

But of course it makes a difference that you just don't aquire the game if you don't like that kind of games. So the people who actually play it and rate it are the players who'll most likely enjoy it. Is it the best game evar? No, I don't think so. But it is an impressive feat and I think part of the high rating is because of that.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ubarose, n815e

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Mar 2019 20:12 #294148 by DarthJoJo
I’m sorry. Did something come after “Thomas Mann is boring.”? It all just kind of faded into a grey noise of “durrrrrrrrrr” after that.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Mar 2019 20:19 #294149 by GorillaGrody

DarthJoJo wrote: I’m sorry. Did something come after “Thomas Mann is boring.”? It all just kind of faded into a grey noise of “durrrrrrrrrr” after that.


I’ll give you Death in Venice, but man, Buddenbrooks. Oof. No.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Frohike, DarthJoJo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Mar 2019 20:23 #294150 by JonathanVolk
OMG The Magic Mountain is a top 5 novel!!
The following user(s) said Thank You: DarthJoJo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Mar 2019 23:37 #294160 by DarthJoJo

GorillaGrody wrote:

DarthJoJo wrote: I’m sorry. Did something come after “Thomas Mann is boring.”? It all just kind of faded into a grey noise of “durrrrrrrrrr” after that.


I’ll give you Death in Venice, but man, Buddenbrooks. Oof. No.


I think you mean “Buddenbrooks. Oof. Yes.” Easy mistake to make. The keys are quite close together.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Mar 2019 09:31 #294169 by JonathanVolk
About that Mann line: I spent an embarrassing amount of time reading negative GoodReads reviews of The Magic Mountain, largely because I love to punish myself with opinions that go against mine. Obviously, a thousand page plotless comedy about people dying of tuberculosis isn’t for everyone, but I’m curious to read why people who hate it stick with it; after all, hate-watching, that pastime of the Bachelor/reality TV/post-writer era, is so much more passively easy than hate-reading or, in our case, hate-playing.

I visit National Review daily in a similar spirit, since it’s, like, “the best” writing American conservatism has got. Also, incidentally, it’s where Armond White now reviews movies, whose critical contrarianism has long been a fascination—he loves Michael Bay, which is kinda outrageous, though I will hand it to him that Bay is one of the few remaining auteurs we have in the era of the Supehero Industrial Complex.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Frohike, GorillaGrody, DarthJoJo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Mar 2019 09:54 #294170 by hotseatgames
Michael Bay is my go-to guy to give me good explosions. I can count on him.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Mar 2019 10:40 #294176 by GorillaGrody
In as much as Bay is a former art-school student who has a weird, cerebral approach to surface-level cinematic technique and an obsession with not totally convincing political platforms, I've often called Michael Bay the Jean-Luc Godard that America deserves.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Frohike, Colorcrayons, JonathanVolk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Mar 2019 17:59 #294212 by n815e
When I want a truly refreshing review of a movie, I watch The Onion Film Standard.

I still haven’t found the board game equivalent of that.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary SaxFrohike
Time to create page: 0.219 seconds