Classic Games: Life - Anybody else find this pattern?

[StayPuft]

So, some classic game talk for you here. LOL! Before being introduced to Last Night On Earth, I'd never really played board games like it. I'd only ever played the classics, like Monopoly, Life, etc. and party games like Apples to Apples and Quelf. Last Night On Earth has opened a whole new world to me! :-D

One of my all time favorite classic board games has always been Life. (I highlight classic board games now, because LNOE is now my all time favorite board game, and in my mind in a class all of its own.)

One thing though...

As much as I have always loved the board game Life, I have always found that SOMEHOW the same pattern always evolves throughout the game. The game is completely random, based on the luck of the spinner thingy, and where you land. Stuff like that. So, it should wind up being completely random. BUT...

Somehow, literally EVERY TIME I play this game with somebody, one person gets completely violated by this game while the other gets all the good luck. I swear, I am not kidding you. Every. Single. Time. LOL! I have to admit, it honestly makes the game just a little less fun. Don't get me wrong. I still love it, and still have fun. Whether I am the guy getting crapped on, or the guy having all the luck, I still have fun.

But, games are a lot more fun when they are close. Plus, frankly I find them more fun when they are based both on luck and some skill like LNOE. This game is pure luck, but it also somehow never winds up being a balanced game. To me, that just isn't as fun.

Is it just me, or does anybody else find this with Life? Or has anybody actually had balanced games when playing?

[mqstout]

"Classic games" as you call them are all about that. Think about the childhood favorite Shoots and Ladders -- there's NOTHING in that but rolling a die and moving what it says. It's not a game: it's a program. Most well-known "classic games" are abysmal like that. Monopoly include.

Once you start involving strategy, some games are salvageable or even good. For example, Clue's a favorite of mine, even though it's largely a simple heuristic to win; there is some search optimization involved to find the solution.

Also, don't forget about the group of classic abstract games -- chess, go, checkers... They're a different beast entirely.

[Old Dwarf]

Leaving Chess & even Checkers the Classic Board Games
were basically Family Friendly so everyone had a shot to
win.They were more of a bonding social thing (back
in the day before Video Games)for Family/Friends.

I don't think anyone played for balance it wasn't the point,
you landed on Boardwalk with 4 Hotels it was Funny/Tragic,
the owner got to act like Scrooge & the person with
his tin cannon(I had an old Game) on the place got to moan.

Later when we played the infamous Furry Freak Brothers
Monoply knock off where you tried to score Weed
(I loved the Dog ate your stash space-I would love
to find this game again) balance wasn't important
just getting a buzz was .As for "Sip & Go Naked" no
balance the point of playing was obvious (OK it's not
a Classic nor a Family Game but it sure beat the Hell
out of Life or Monopoly.)

So before I trip further down Memory Lane I'll leave with
this thought "Zombie Monopoly"-think about it the
Game is played on a Board that represents a Town,
instead of rents & fees you get Zombie Attacks,
I trust no one beats me to Kickstarter

OD[/u]

[argailwall]

allthough not classics on the same way you mean it SP, these 2 games are classics for introduction in board games other than the classics you say,
Ticket to Ride is a very easy to learn, quick to play and one of the most awarded games ever(I think 14 prizes) if you want to expand your board game experience i suggested this one, it will be played hundreads of times and it really worths its money, i still play TtR a lot even after more than a decade of gaming

the 2nd most classic(actually the most classic of all but i prefer TtR) is the Settlers of Catan, building and trading on the island of Catan, an island that changes every time you play, this is also kind of easy to learn and has also lots of awards and will keep you company for lots of time( this i dont like to play a lot now, i dont know though what happens with the latest expansions)

This was kinda out of topic but i wanted to suggest to SP games like these

[StayPuft]

(07-06-2012 09:01 PM)mqstout Wrote:  "Classic games" as you call them are all about that. Think about the childhood favorite Shoots and Ladders -- there's NOTHING in that but rolling a die and moving what it says. It's not a game: it's a program. Most well-known "classic games" are abysmal like that. Monopoly include.

LOL! I know just what you mean. Though, I didn't say I don't like those games. I LOVE Life. I just don't find it as fun as games like Last Night On Earth, or even Clue as you mentioned, because somehow it always seems to go the same way.

(07-07-2012 11:46 AM)Old Dwarf Wrote:  Leaving Chess & even Checkers the Classic Board Games
were basically Family Friendly so everyone had a shot to
win.They were more of a bonding social thing (back
in the day before Video Games)for Family/Friends.

I don't think anyone played for balance it wasn't the point,
you landed on Boardwalk with 4 Hotels it was Funny/Tragic,
the owner got to act like Scrooge & the person with
his tin cannon(I had an old Game) on the place got to moan.

Later when we played the infamous Furry Freak Brothers
Monoply knock off where you tried to score Weed
(I loved the Dog ate your stash space-I would love
to find this game again) balance wasn't important
just getting a buzz was .As for "Sip & Go Naked" no
balance the point of playing was obvious (OK it's not
a Classic nor a Family Game but it sure beat the Hell
out of Life or Monopoly.)

So before I trip further down Memory Lane I'll leave with
this thought "Zombie Monopoly"-think about it the
Game is played on a Board that represents a Town,
instead of rents & fees you get Zombie Attacks,
I trust no one beats me to Kickstarter

OD[/u]

You know, the funny thing is, I see this having the potential to go the exact opposite way. Families just wanting to play a game to have a little fun probably aren't going to enjoy a game that completely craps on one of them every time they play. That isn't necessarily all that fun. Part of the fun is not knowing who is going to win. Games like Monopoly do involve some strategy. (ex: should I buy tons of properties, or just save for big ones?) But, it also winds up involving luck. You roll the dice and land where ever you may happen to land.

Life is supposed to be random like that, yet somehow I find it always seems to follow the same pattern. One person gets completely dumped on while the other person has every lucky break in the game. LOL! That said, I still love the game, but it certainly tends to give it less longevity. Weird how that happens, too, because it is by random spin of the spinner thingy. It should be random, yet somehow it never completely is.

By the way,

Thanks, argailwall.

I will have to look into the games you mentioned. Hopefully I am able to meet a few new gaming buddies soon, and if I do I am sure we will eventually move on to other games in addition to LNOE. But for now, I'm too hooked on LNOE to want to play anything else just yet. LOL! ;-)

[Masterofmayhem]

If I may include myself in this conversation, here are a few pointers I have noticed in my own gaming habits.

First off, Backgammon is a classic-style board game with high amounts of luck, but is still a strategy game. Now back to the topic

I used to play Go and Chess quite a bit on a pretty good level. Both games have no luck whatsoever and all continuations, patterns, tactics and results can be calculated with skill. There is no "chaos" factor in the form of luck. I call it chaotic because dice rolls etc are something you can do nothing to influence. At least in theory a die has the very exact percentage of hitting any of the numbers. As these games have no unknown, uncontrollable force, they are entirely up to the players' skillsets to win. What this creates is not a "fun" game, but an intense battle of wits. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy these games a lot, but they never give me the sense of "HOLY CRAP! Unbelievable!" because everything which happens on the board is/should be known to the players before it happens. Thus predictability destroys the "wow factor". This leads me to believe that a game needs luck in order to create "fun".

Here I need to state that I am using citation marks around the word fun, because it is such a multifaceted word. Here by fun I mean the pure excitement and childlike "woohoo" feeling.

So a game needs luck. How about Bingo? Coin flipping? Horrible games, or not even games in any sense as the player has no role in them. They are based on only one thing, luck. So 100% luck is not good either. It must be somewhere in between. A game must have some luck, but also some skill related parts to make the player feel like he matters and can affect the outcome of the game. But not all luck+skill=good game equations are true. As was discussed in BGG, a horrible skill+luck game was invented to demonstrate the failing points of badly created games. Here is the example:

The game's name is Dice Chess.
1. Play a normal game of Chess.
2. After the Chess game, roll a die. The winner of the Chess game gets +1 to his roll.
3. The one who rolled the highest including the modifier, wins.

How fun would it be to play or win this game? Not very, as luck would clearly dominate the outcome and the ratio of needed skill and pure luck is out of balance. So not all combinations are good. Maybe there are different ways to include luck in a game.

Here we come to another conversation on BGG, which I have been following. Some of my thoughts will be my own and some copied from there. The Dice Chess example shows what was labelled as Output Luck. What this means is that you use skill to play as well as you can, but luck ultimately decides your fate. To lesser extent it can be seen in games like Risk, Axis&Allies and many others. The opposite of this is Input Luck, which gives you randomized circumstances and then asks you to adapt to the changes with your tactics. These games include games like Carcassone, Pandemia, Forbidden Island and again many others. Now we are nearing great games. Then we have games which use both types of luck. These would include Dominion, Red November etc. LNoE is a bit complex on this scale due to the heavy use of randomization on both sides of the battle in various stages of turns, so for that reason I would put it into the "both types" category though I still feel that it has a similar sense of playing as Output Luck games.

I have realized that all of my most exciting and "fun" moments have been during games which have either Output Luck, or both kinds of luck. This will surely vary per player, so I would like to hear your thoughts on the topic. Sorry for the long post, it was needed to get the message through

[StayPuft]

Masterofmayhem,

That was a very interesting breakdown you gave there. I can definitely agree with this for the most part. The only thing I'd say is that I do find some pure luck based games like Bingo to be fun. Heck, Bingo is actually pretty fun.

But, to me, it is a different kind of fun. It isn't the same level of fun. For example, you wouldn't see me posting on a Bingo message board, or becoming obsessed with Bingo. I doubt very many people are. LOL!

Again, as I mentioned, I really do enjoy the Game of Life. But, it is mostly luck based. As much as I like it, you wouldn't see me on a message board dedicated to Life, or trying to get game nights going to play Life with people.

Then, there are games like Chess, as you mention. Those are based pretty much entirely on skill. Personally, I am actually the type of person who could be really good at that sort of thing if I wanted to do so. I'd be the type who could study all these diagrams and situations with what to do when your opponent does this, etc. and become a pretty good player.

But, those kind of games honestly hold absolutely no appeal to me. Now, granted, I am sure plenty of people do find them to be fun. Me personally, not at all. But, even if I did, that too would fall under a different type of fun. Not at the same level. Plus, one thing I dislike about that is that a very skilled player can play a relative newbie, and the newbie stands very little if any chance. Where is the fun in that, for either party? (Unless the skilled player is a saddist and/or the newbie is a masochist. LOL!)

As you put it, Last Night On Earth contains a wonderful balance of both skill and luck. Because of this, you really never know who is going to win. A very skilled and seasoned player of this game could play against a newbie, and the newbie could end up winning. You truly never know. To me, that is what makes a perfect game. Anybody could win the game at any time. Skill may help you, as may luck, but neither will guarantee you victory. That is part of the excitement.

[Old Dwarf]

(07-13-2012 07:40 PM)StayPuft Wrote:  Masterofmayhem,

The only thing I'd say is that I do find some pure luck based games like Bingo to be fun. Heck, Bingo is actually pretty fun.

Ha...Have you ever had to run one,the old ladies bitching,
demanding you shake up your balls,the lungs full of smoke,
not to mention coming out with your clothes smelling
like smoke.

I hate Bingo

OD

[Masterofmayhem]

StayPuft,

I agree wholeheartedly about the different kinds of fun. Chess matches and other games with a heavy reliance on skill, even if luck is involved, give a very different kind of good feeling. I find that it isn't the case in only games with no luck involved, but also in those where luck plays a minor role. Commonly these games are considered heavy strategy games. Civilization, Eclipse and mostly all 4X (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) style games have this in common. Whether they include Output luck, Input luck, or both, it is in a minor role and results can be heavily influenced by player choices. The good feeling these games give is in my opinion is not the feeling of fun, but accomplishment and satisfaction. The feeling of a long and hard calculation coming to fruition and seeing your logic trump that of others. A great feeling for sure, but still not the same as a childlike pure feeling of fun without agendas.

As for why I consider Bingo and other purely luck based games bad, is that they need external motivators to be interesting. However much people like bingo or the lottery, how fun would they be without any prizes? Imagine playing lottery with no monetary prize. Woohoo, sure to attract millions of players weekly... So the issue I have with these games is that the games themselves are insufficient of producing excitement without motivators outside the game mechanics themselves. In LNoE, it is more than enough to survive the zombie onslaught, there is no need for making bets. In Axis&Allies is conquering the world not enough? Good games have built in motivators. Purely luck based games do not.

I had some other thoughts as well, but I was distracted so I will have to skip writing about them Maybe it will come to me when I read your replies, maybe not. Such is the chaotic nature of my head

[StayPuft]

LOL! Old Dwarf, I can say I am lucky enough not to have had that experience. Perhaps my views on Bingo would change if I did.

Masterofmayhem,

Again, I find I could not agree with you more. There is certainly a difference in the kind of "fun" games like chess give you to games like Last Night On Earth. In my personal opinion, that child-like kind of fun is the best kind in the world. When you can forget yourself for a while, turn off your brain, and have fun in the same kind of ways you did as a kid, nothing beats that. That is one of the reasons I LOVE Last Night On Earth.

Okay, so kids wouldn't exactly be playing a board game about a zombie apocalypse... (Well... most kids... I probably would have, LOL!) But, it is the same kind of feeling. The same innocent, care free kind of fun that makes you feel like a kid again.

In my opinion, Bingo would still be somewhat fun even if there were no prizes. But, you are definitely right in that it would not be nearly as fun. As you say, unless there are prizes, there is really nothing to invest you in the game other than the thrill of winning. That, alone, doesn't make it all that fun.

With games like Last Night On Earth, win or lose, you have a blast.