Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Gaming in Queensborough Park

On Sunday I passed on soccer practice (which was just as well since coach was there) to attend my friends' BBQ birthday part in Queens. I think this was the first time that I actually did something in Queens other than drive through or transfer at a subway stop. Once again though, my attempt to travel to and from a borough other than Manhattan was met with difficulty as the F train was not running both ways (last time I went to Brooklyn and the J wasn't running at all). At least I didn't have to take a shuttle bus for this event.

The BBQ was very nice. As usual Rob did a fantastic job grilling and I ate way too much food. It was nice to get some park volleyball in as well, though when I first stepped up I was still in a tournament mindset, so my service went way out of bounds. What was also great about the day was that I was actually able to get some gaming in. Of late I haven't gamed at all. I've' just been so busy with soccer and work that I haven't gotten around to it. Plus, none of my friends are regular social gamers anymore, so there isn't any impetus there. The games we played at the BBQ were traditional games, but some of the most popular ones out there now. Here is my take on each of these games:

Guillotine: This game is really simple to learn and its amusement factor is pretty high by virtue of the fact that you're trying to accumulate French society members to send to the guillotine. The more desireable they are to kill, the more points they're worth. The fact that you can manipulate all the cards on the table (Even your opponents' catches) makes this pretty fun. The one downside to the game is that you can't do anything when it's not your turn. Still, lots of fun with this one.

Fluxx: This is a game of ever changing rules and the rules don't necessarily negate each other. Many times they replace parts of existing rules. This "replacement effect" is very odd, though it's present in the Magic TCG (not sure that similarlity is a plus for Fluxx). As in Guillotine you can manipulate almost all the cards in the game, but the medium is pretty stale (black and white symbols to match for the win). Once again you can't do anything when it's not your turn. I found myself losing interest in the game pretty quickly...especially when the draw 6, then play all cards in your hand rule combo appeared (and yes, the rule affected everyone playing).

Apples to Apples: So many people rave about this game. Everyone takes turns being the judge and placing a green apple which has some adjective like "intense." Then everyone else takes a card from their hand that they think best matches the adjective and plays it. The judge for that round decides who is closest and that person gets the green apple (you need four apples to win). Initially, I was like, "how is this game fun?" I was bothered by the fact that the judging would be heavily subjective and at times blatantly corrupt. Nobody else seemed to care and I soon realized the "fun" was when people play cards that make no sense for the adjective (Darth Vader played to match fuzzy). I admit that playing was fun, but I still hold that this is the worst of the three games because winning is far too arbitrary.

The BBQ was the first time I had ever played the above three games and I won all three of the games I played. The day reminded me that I do still enjoy gaming, but that a huge part of the enjoyment factor is in playing with people whose company I enjoy. The crowd at the party was great, but I did miss my gamer friends terribly and thought of them wandering around Indianapolis this weekend. Hope you all had a blast!

3 Comments:

At 8:28 AM, Blogger TMac said...

We were in Indianapolis, hell if I knew what city we were in.

 
At 4:39 PM, Blogger Jason said...

Even if I didn't know already, I could pretty easily pick out that you were a CCG player/"strategic" gamer, just by reading your descriptions of the those games. I like all three of them, largely because they are fairly random and don't rely on just one's ability to manipulate resources, disrupt an opponent's turn, etc. And, truthfully, those factors contribute to why all three of them have been successful, especially in the mass market.

I have a similar game made up that I'm trying ot pitch, and I got just that kind of response from someone: "It seems awfully random and arbitrary." Yeah, and that sells to the majority of people. What's your point? Strangely, I don't think Monopoly would be better with counterspells or ways to fix your die rolls.

In short, they're not made for you or me, the "gamer geek." They're made for "normal" people :) Of which there are a lot more of, and therefore more potential customers.

 
At 10:55 AM, Blogger Hayden said...

Your points are well-taken, but I see huge differences between the games I reviewed and Monopoly. If Monopoly were the type of game Apples to Apples is, you'd be allowed to, as the banker, take money for yourself whenever you liked. Given how my dad likes to play Monopoly, he'd probably love Apples to Apples. ;)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home