16 ms·

While it's true that negative feedback either by the game's mechanics or the interaction with other players is a feature of newer boardgames, there are a few ot

While it's true that negative feedback either by the game's mechanics or the interaction with other players is a feature of newer boardgames, there are a few other points that are just as important. These games for the most part lack a player elimination mechanic. When games can last a couple of hours, players see early elimination as a failure in design. Board game designers then strive to keep everyone in the game and actively participating until the end of the game. This pairs nicely with hidden or partially hidden victory point systems. Direct confrontation is largely replaced with competition over action selection, resources, and softer forms of territory control. Players with bad experiences of being ganged-up on are open to the competition of being the first to gobble up pools of resources, or shut out other players from taking exclusive actions. I'm not that familiar with video games take on these ideas, but my little experience says they tend to do the opposite.

TheGRS 9y ago
Yep, I can't think of a competitive video game that does any of these things well. Maybe this is an untapped market? Twitch controls and player elimination are still huge with video games. Battle royale modes and MOBAs are very in, but any multiplayer game I remember playing a lot of was usually centered around this. FPS games, RTS games, fighting games, they are all about your reaction speed. A lot of modes will at least let you play the whole match of a game, but still require a heavy amount of confrontation and twitch gameplay. Turn-based games are a slog to play multiplayer though, so I can understand why that's the case. There are a lot of people who enjoy twitch board games though, games like nerts or slamwich (both of which I'm not a huge fan of), so maybe the opposite is true of board games: that there's an untapped market out there for this style. I do really enjoy Spot-It for some reason however :)
- 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
  M.U.L.E. is the closest thing I can think of, and I don't know that it's had anything even resembling a worthy successor. There were a few attempts, but as far as I know none of them were very well-received.
  - b0rsuk 9y ago
    Settlers of Catan is practically M.U.L.E. refined. You start by buying land, then the land bears resources. When you sell to other players, you can ask any price you want. You build up by laying down roads, towns and cities, tech up with random development cards. The most common dice result - 7 - is the Thief, which lets the current player rob any other for half of their resources rounded down. If you liked M.U.L.E., you will love Settlers of Catan.
    - nicky0 9y ago
      Just as a point of accuracy, the Robber only lets you steal one card. But anyone with 8 or more cards has to discard half rounded down.
    - entropy_ 9y ago
      Just a small correction. The Robber(or Thief) in Catan doesn't allow you to steal half another player's resources, you just steal one card. However, if any player has 8 or more resource cards in their hands when '7' is rolled, they need to discard half rounded down.
  - parasubvert 9y ago
    I loved M.U.L.E. an unhealthy amount as a kid. Take a look at Uwe Rosenberg’s games, particularly Caverna or Agricola.
    - michaelbarton 9y ago
      I agree with the recommendations. I love caverna. Patchwork is great two player game, by that same designer, that I can even play with my mother. She's not particularly into games either. My game of the year so far is Yokohama. If you like worker placement, I imagine you would like this.
  - TheGRS 9y ago
    I haven't played it, but they turned M.U.L.E. into a board game recently :)
- DigitalJack 9y ago
  What about questing with a group on a mmorpg?
  - TheGRS 9y ago
    That seems more co-operative than competitive though.
    - taurath 9y ago
      Raid boss games where one person plays the monster and the rest play the heroes are pretty viable I find. The problem is getting the mechanics complicated enough to have some strategy but clear enough to not have to lawyer.
- shitloadofbooks 9y ago
  Overwatch is a good example of the progression of the FPS genre. I'm 31 now, and my twitch reaction is nowhere near what it was in highschool, yet Overwatch offers a whole bunch of characters (around half) who don't require (or don't have) twitch / reaction gameplay. There are characters who heal the other characters just by being in their vicinity, characters with beam weapons which automatically lock on to opponents, etc. If you die, you are out of the game for 6-10 seconds as a penalty, but not "player elimination" in the board game sense.)
  - firebones 9y ago
    I wonder if there's an interesting dynamic there in a board game, where if the pace of complexity is high enough, being out of the game could become a tactical advantage. Maybe that cant work without omniscient or perfect information for those out.
    - andrey-p 9y ago
      Small World kind of sort of does that. The game simulates the rise and fall of civilisations, and a key part of the game is knowing when to call it quits with your current civilization and start playing with a new one. You skip a turn whenever you do that, so you can easily shoot yourself in the foot if your timing is off.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    It's more a regression. Removed all the skilled mechanics and now playing is like a spectator. It's easier for everyone, a tad like watching TV.
- baddox 9y ago
  I would say that the elimination mechanic is quite rare in conpetitive video games. Battle royale games are recently hot, and pretty much have elimination by definition, but I can’t think of any other popular video games that do this. Counter-Strike does, but each round is very short. What MOBA features player elimination? All the MOBAs I can think of have fairly short respawn times. I suppose that RTS games with >2 players have this, but they are mostly know for 1v1 modes.
  - Noos 9y ago
    Friday the 13th: The Game and Dead by Daylight maybe? Left 4 Dead. Oh..one great example is Bomberman, although some games have dead Bombers fling bombs from the side.
    - disease 9y ago
      It's interesting to look back at just how well designed Super Bomberman was. It is fast-paced but my dad could play it with us and even win some rounds. The mix of skill and luck seems just right. There are many interesting and funny paths a game can take. All this comes from just a seemingly simple premise.
    - user5994461 9y ago
      Left 4 Dead doesn't have strict player elimitation. It's a team game, always 4 v 4. You can still see the game and talk to your teammates when you are dead. Everyone die within a minute usually. A death has not much impact -except a severe sudden disadvantage- since the entire team win or loose, there is no individual play.
- ido 9y ago
  Just as a side observation about a possible blind spot: arguably the biggest multiplayer game today is Clash of Clans, which is multiplayer and not "classically turn-based" but definitely not real time multiplayer like Starcraft and FPSs (your opponent doesn't need to be online at the same time you are).
- christopheml 9y ago
  The usual solution for player elimination in online games is the ability to leave the game you've been eliminated from and start another game right away, which is embodied by matchmaking systems and solo queuing. Doesn't help when you want to stick with a group of players (e.g. friends, team) and brings its own kind if issues.
- masklinn 9y ago
  > Twitch controls and player elimination are still huge with video games. Battle royale modes and MOBAs are very in, but any multiplayer game I remember playing a lot of was usually centered around this. Twitch control yes, but elimination not really, in multiplayer video games it's timeout rather than elimination e.g. in CS you wait for the round's end (2~3mn usually), in MOBAs you have a time-out of variable length (caps out at ~2mn in DOTA). And when there's an elimination system (e.g. Hearthstone Arena) you're not stuck waiting around for other people to finish, you can just go do something else (in-game). Actual old-board-game-style player elimination is very rare in video games, otherwise it wouldn't be a defining feature of pubg.
  - freeone3000 9y ago
    even pubg, you're not obligated to stick around to the end - you just start a new game with new people.
- 13years 9y ago
  World of Tanks has been my favorite game for years. It strikes a nice balance between reaction speed and strategy. Due to the game mechanics of 'aim time' this somewhat eliminates the huge advantages of ping time and those with super human reaction times. Doing well requires good team strategy as well as deep understandings of tank mechanics such as armor weak spots, tank positioning to increase chances of bounces etc and also map strategy. Therefore, the great players aren't those who have developed better reaction times, they are the ones who have developed deep knowledge and skill around the games many maps and 300+ tanks
  - user5994461 9y ago
    >>> Therefore, the great players aren't those who have developed better reaction times, they are the ones who have developed deep knowledge and skill around the games many maps and 300+ tanks It's the same for FPS at high level. Learn the map and the probably position for anytime at anytime. They don't spend a lot of time aiming and moving when already knowing where the enemy will show up. Just have to click. To give a good illustration, top players could almost play blindfolded.
    - 13years 9y ago
      That really doesn't describe the meta game of World of Tanks. Yes, there are tactical positions, but you can't just camp for most of them. They maps are large enough that your team must be dynamic enough to adapt. You also can't just click without aiming. Damaging a tank always requires aiming, even if you know where they may show up. Many tanks can only be damaged effectively in small weak areas, depending on the gun of your own tank. This can require that you actually focus for several seconds on the spot you are trying to hit to get a good enough aim to actually hit it.
      - user5994461 9y ago
        I know, I just wanted to illustrate that FPS are very similar strategically. FPS at good level has a high tactical component. People think it's all point and click but it's only half the game.
- azernik 9y ago
  I've found Offworld Trading Company to be basically the eurogame of video games. There is some player elimination, but only in the endgame.
  - TheGRS 9y ago
    Yes, I am a big fan of that game! It comes fairly close to that eurostyle board game and once I figured out how to play it I was having a great time. Its still fairly confrontational, as in you need to be raiding fellow player's bases to gain an advantage, but otherwise its pretty good.
- lmm 9y ago
  Making a good n-way game is really difficult. Even for 3 players, either the player in last place can affect which of the other two wins, or they can't; either answer is bad. Videogames these days seem to mostly be one team versus another team, which avoids that problem - there's no such thing as player elimination if there are only two "players" (the teams).
- trafficlight 9y ago
  Battle Royales work in the video game world because I can just queue up immediately after elimination. Can't do that when I'm with my friends for the evening.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
"Lack of a player elimination mechanic" is nearly ubiquitous in action games. Players can be killed, but never bumped out of the game; you just respawn in a few seconds and try again. The penalty is that you're unable to harass the enemy team during the respawn delay and the run back from the spawn point. Elimination deathmatch modes exist, but they're usually an optional mode, and even then calibrated so matches take no more than a few minutes.
- mrob 9y ago
  However, one of the most successful and popular action game series, Counter-Strike, is based around player elimination.
  - maccard 9y ago
    The elimination in CS is in the region of 2-3 minutes, whereas in any board game I’ve played, it’s been 30+
  - KON_Air 9y ago
    I played every CS except CS:GO and despite all the changes and the focus on selling clown guns I'm pretty sure it is still a "complete the objective against the clock" game. Unless it is poolday.
    - geon 9y ago
      It is very rare to have the clock run down. The time mechanic is there only to limit the round time. Most of the time either team is eliminated, or the bomb goes off/is defused.
- TheGRS 9y ago
  Not so, PUBG is one of the most popular games right now and is based primarily around player elimination. Though they don't make you wait around to see the end of the match.
  - 9y ago
philsnow 9y ago
Consider Monopoly: it has an elimination mechanic but it's almost a mercy, because quite often in games you know from a few minutes in that you're not going to win. I'm thinking of race for the galaxy here: whoever's engine gets started first pretty much walks away with the game, but you still have to play twenty more minutes of the game.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  Comparing RFTG to Monopoly made me barf up a little, frankly.
  - viridian 9y ago
    Monopoly isn't even a bad game if you do this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15822820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15822820 Somehow a particular set of house rules got popular enough to make everyone hate monopoly. It turns a game of high stakes, high commitment resource scuffling, into a game where you either get knocked out fast or are given enough free assets that you can only lose in the slowest, most agonizing way possible. It's kind of funny how a game designed to heavily favor aggression to make a point had that entire point negated by house rules.
    - lmm 9y ago
      People feel the need to introduce a social safety net into a game of red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalism. Maybe the game made its point after all.
    - SubiculumCode 9y ago
      http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/02/introducing-modern-money-monopoly-mmm.html http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/02/introducing-moder... An interesting read
- jknoepfler 9y ago
  Games that lack meaningful player interaction generally struggle to create interesting rubber-banding. It's a very tricky thing to get right (king-making in 3+ player games is a huge problem that tends to tug against allowing strong player interactions - consider 2-player chess vs. 4-player chess)
dawnbreez 9y ago
As someone who plays a "competitive" first-person shooter (Counter-Strike: Global Offensive) I can say that at least one game does the exact opposite. Players compete directly, and elimination is for the rest of a ~5 minute "round", meaning that failure is a harsh punishment. However, other games do it differently--Quake 3, for instance, featured near-instant "respawning", such that a player is never eliminated, only reset (and because the player's starting resources are enough to eliminate another player, it's possible to recover quickly). Strategy games and RPGs typically play much more like early boardgames, with elimination being a major setback or even a "game over" state, and conflict being direct combat. Fighting games are direct and brutal, and typically you lose the game after two or perhaps three eliminations--but the game moves so fast that a whole game may be over in two minutes, so elimination is a non-issue as far as not getting to continue play. Where boardgames solve it by making the "time to elimination" as long as possible relative to the game, videogames solve this by allowing players to return to the game quickly.
b0rsuk 9y ago
Player elimination is uncommon in so-called "eurogames". These tend to be some kind of race for victory points. "ameritrash" games revel in drama, frequently feature dice rolls and very random outcomes. Both approaches have their fans.
- Joe-Z 9y ago
  It's a bit sad that ameritrash sounds demeaning. I'm a fan of bringing some randomness into games (big fan of games including dice or card draws). My super-into-boardgames-friends seem to prefer "eurogames", but for me that's often too convoluted. I want to have fun and not plan some grand scheme to trump everyone else (I have enough planning and carefulness in my job already).
  - kzrdude 9y ago
    It's a ridiculous term that is just mean, no reason to use it. I'm sad too.
  - Ntrails 9y ago
    A little bit of luck is really helpful in allowing for diversity in game flow. Something like a mechanic where resources open up on one of 3 random turns means it's harder to reproduce an optimal strategy etc. Obviously luck is not necessary for a good game, but I do think it makes certain elements of game design easier.
  - s0rce 9y ago
    This is often my feeling, if the game is too involved, too technical and requires extensive thinking and manual reading then it feels like work. Similarly, baking also feels like working in the lab (I'm a scientist).
  - b0rsuk 9y ago
    There are varying shades of luck and even methods to apply randomness. One way of classification: * you can do what you want, but success chance is random * action choice is random, success is deterministic I prefer the second approach. Your options are limited, but whatever you do, works. I think eurogames use the second way more often. Yes, the term "ameritrash" is intentionally derogatory (I didn't come up with it). Can you propose a better term ?
bcoates 9y ago
The 1955 Parker Brothers game "Careers" is weirdly ahead of its time in this way, it's roll-and-move (looks like Monopoly) but each player chooses their own, hidden, victory condition to win. It's the norm for everyone in a 4 player game to still think they have a shot at winning right up until someone reveals that they have won. I've always wanted a decent Civ-style computer game that did that, it would solve the "diplomatic AI in a zero-sum game makes no sense" problem. Careers has way too much of a luck component and not enough direct competition for serious gamers but for a light family game it's basically a not terrible version of Monopoly or Life. Edit: also from the designer of Careers: invented language Loglan. I guess there's something to the "language as cooperative game" theory.
- aaron-santos 9y ago
  Hidden victory conditions can be great at keeping players engaged until the winning player makes the reveal. Dead of Winter and Archipelago are great examples of this at work. Your response reminded me of another theme common among designer boardgames: the manipulation of randomness. It's common to see non-replacement probabilities like drawing from a stack of cards or a bag of chits, and less common to see unmodifiable die rolls. Non-replacement randomness is an easy way to include a strategic component to what could otherwise be boring die rolls. If dice are used, often it's possible to manipulate the results post-roll a la The Castles of Burgundy and many other Stefan Feld games.

TheGRS 9y ago

Yep, I can't think of a competitive video game that does any of these things well. Maybe this is an untapped market? Twitch controls and player elimination are still huge with video games. Battle royale modes and MOBAs are very in, but any multiplayer game I remember playing a lot of was usually centered around this. FPS games, RTS games, fighting games, they are all about your reaction speed. A lot of modes will at least let you play the whole match of a game, but still require a heavy amount of confrontation and twitch gameplay. Turn-based games are a slog to play multiplayer though, so I can understand why that's the case. There are a lot of people who enjoy twitch board games though, games like nerts or slamwich (both of which I'm not a huge fan of), so maybe the opposite is true of board games: that there's an untapped market out there for this style. I do really enjoy Spot-It for some reason however :)

0xcde4c3db 9y ago
M.U.L.E. is the closest thing I can think of, and I don't know that it's had anything even resembling a worthy successor. There were a few attempts, but as far as I know none of them were very well-received.
- b0rsuk 9y ago
  Settlers of Catan is practically M.U.L.E. refined. You start by buying land, then the land bears resources. When you sell to other players, you can ask any price you want. You build up by laying down roads, towns and cities, tech up with random development cards. The most common dice result - 7 - is the Thief, which lets the current player rob any other for half of their resources rounded down. If you liked M.U.L.E., you will love Settlers of Catan.
  - nicky0 9y ago
    Just as a point of accuracy, the Robber only lets you steal one card. But anyone with 8 or more cards has to discard half rounded down.
  - entropy_ 9y ago
    Just a small correction. The Robber(or Thief) in Catan doesn't allow you to steal half another player's resources, you just steal one card. However, if any player has 8 or more resource cards in their hands when '7' is rolled, they need to discard half rounded down.
- parasubvert 9y ago
  I loved M.U.L.E. an unhealthy amount as a kid. Take a look at Uwe Rosenberg’s games, particularly Caverna or Agricola.
  - michaelbarton 9y ago
    I agree with the recommendations. I love caverna. Patchwork is great two player game, by that same designer, that I can even play with my mother. She's not particularly into games either. My game of the year so far is Yokohama. If you like worker placement, I imagine you would like this.
- TheGRS 9y ago
  I haven't played it, but they turned M.U.L.E. into a board game recently :)
DigitalJack 9y ago
What about questing with a group on a mmorpg?
- TheGRS 9y ago
  That seems more co-operative than competitive though.
  - taurath 9y ago
    Raid boss games where one person plays the monster and the rest play the heroes are pretty viable I find. The problem is getting the mechanics complicated enough to have some strategy but clear enough to not have to lawyer.
shitloadofbooks 9y ago
Overwatch is a good example of the progression of the FPS genre. I'm 31 now, and my twitch reaction is nowhere near what it was in highschool, yet Overwatch offers a whole bunch of characters (around half) who don't require (or don't have) twitch / reaction gameplay. There are characters who heal the other characters just by being in their vicinity, characters with beam weapons which automatically lock on to opponents, etc. If you die, you are out of the game for 6-10 seconds as a penalty, but not "player elimination" in the board game sense.)
- firebones 9y ago
  I wonder if there's an interesting dynamic there in a board game, where if the pace of complexity is high enough, being out of the game could become a tactical advantage. Maybe that cant work without omniscient or perfect information for those out.
  - andrey-p 9y ago
    Small World kind of sort of does that. The game simulates the rise and fall of civilisations, and a key part of the game is knowing when to call it quits with your current civilization and start playing with a new one. You skip a turn whenever you do that, so you can easily shoot yourself in the foot if your timing is off.
- user5994461 9y ago
  It's more a regression. Removed all the skilled mechanics and now playing is like a spectator. It's easier for everyone, a tad like watching TV.
baddox 9y ago
I would say that the elimination mechanic is quite rare in conpetitive video games. Battle royale games are recently hot, and pretty much have elimination by definition, but I can’t think of any other popular video games that do this. Counter-Strike does, but each round is very short. What MOBA features player elimination? All the MOBAs I can think of have fairly short respawn times. I suppose that RTS games with >2 players have this, but they are mostly know for 1v1 modes.
- Noos 9y ago
  Friday the 13th: The Game and Dead by Daylight maybe? Left 4 Dead. Oh..one great example is Bomberman, although some games have dead Bombers fling bombs from the side.
  - disease 9y ago
    It's interesting to look back at just how well designed Super Bomberman was. It is fast-paced but my dad could play it with us and even win some rounds. The mix of skill and luck seems just right. There are many interesting and funny paths a game can take. All this comes from just a seemingly simple premise.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    Left 4 Dead doesn't have strict player elimitation. It's a team game, always 4 v 4. You can still see the game and talk to your teammates when you are dead. Everyone die within a minute usually. A death has not much impact -except a severe sudden disadvantage- since the entire team win or loose, there is no individual play.
ido 9y ago
Just as a side observation about a possible blind spot: arguably the biggest multiplayer game today is Clash of Clans, which is multiplayer and not "classically turn-based" but definitely not real time multiplayer like Starcraft and FPSs (your opponent doesn't need to be online at the same time you are).
christopheml 9y ago
The usual solution for player elimination in online games is the ability to leave the game you've been eliminated from and start another game right away, which is embodied by matchmaking systems and solo queuing. Doesn't help when you want to stick with a group of players (e.g. friends, team) and brings its own kind if issues.
masklinn 9y ago
> Twitch controls and player elimination are still huge with video games. Battle royale modes and MOBAs are very in, but any multiplayer game I remember playing a lot of was usually centered around this. Twitch control yes, but elimination not really, in multiplayer video games it's timeout rather than elimination e.g. in CS you wait for the round's end (2~3mn usually), in MOBAs you have a time-out of variable length (caps out at ~2mn in DOTA). And when there's an elimination system (e.g. Hearthstone Arena) you're not stuck waiting around for other people to finish, you can just go do something else (in-game). Actual old-board-game-style player elimination is very rare in video games, otherwise it wouldn't be a defining feature of pubg.
- freeone3000 9y ago
  even pubg, you're not obligated to stick around to the end - you just start a new game with new people.
13years 9y ago
World of Tanks has been my favorite game for years. It strikes a nice balance between reaction speed and strategy. Due to the game mechanics of 'aim time' this somewhat eliminates the huge advantages of ping time and those with super human reaction times. Doing well requires good team strategy as well as deep understandings of tank mechanics such as armor weak spots, tank positioning to increase chances of bounces etc and also map strategy. Therefore, the great players aren't those who have developed better reaction times, they are the ones who have developed deep knowledge and skill around the games many maps and 300+ tanks
- user5994461 9y ago
  >>> Therefore, the great players aren't those who have developed better reaction times, they are the ones who have developed deep knowledge and skill around the games many maps and 300+ tanks It's the same for FPS at high level. Learn the map and the probably position for anytime at anytime. They don't spend a lot of time aiming and moving when already knowing where the enemy will show up. Just have to click. To give a good illustration, top players could almost play blindfolded.
  - 13years 9y ago
    That really doesn't describe the meta game of World of Tanks. Yes, there are tactical positions, but you can't just camp for most of them. They maps are large enough that your team must be dynamic enough to adapt. You also can't just click without aiming. Damaging a tank always requires aiming, even if you know where they may show up. Many tanks can only be damaged effectively in small weak areas, depending on the gun of your own tank. This can require that you actually focus for several seconds on the spot you are trying to hit to get a good enough aim to actually hit it.
    - user5994461 9y ago
      I know, I just wanted to illustrate that FPS are very similar strategically. FPS at good level has a high tactical component. People think it's all point and click but it's only half the game.
azernik 9y ago
I've found Offworld Trading Company to be basically the eurogame of video games. There is some player elimination, but only in the endgame.
- TheGRS 9y ago
  Yes, I am a big fan of that game! It comes fairly close to that eurostyle board game and once I figured out how to play it I was having a great time. Its still fairly confrontational, as in you need to be raiding fellow player's bases to gain an advantage, but otherwise its pretty good.
lmm 9y ago
Making a good n-way game is really difficult. Even for 3 players, either the player in last place can affect which of the other two wins, or they can't; either answer is bad. Videogames these days seem to mostly be one team versus another team, which avoids that problem - there's no such thing as player elimination if there are only two "players" (the teams).
trafficlight 9y ago
Battle Royales work in the video game world because I can just queue up immediately after elimination. Can't do that when I'm with my friends for the evening.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

"Lack of a player elimination mechanic" is nearly ubiquitous in action games. Players can be killed, but never bumped out of the game; you just respawn in a few seconds and try again. The penalty is that you're unable to harass the enemy team during the respawn delay and the run back from the spawn point. Elimination deathmatch modes exist, but they're usually an optional mode, and even then calibrated so matches take no more than a few minutes.

mrob 9y ago
However, one of the most successful and popular action game series, Counter-Strike, is based around player elimination.
- maccard 9y ago
  The elimination in CS is in the region of 2-3 minutes, whereas in any board game I’ve played, it’s been 30+
- KON_Air 9y ago
  I played every CS except CS:GO and despite all the changes and the focus on selling clown guns I'm pretty sure it is still a "complete the objective against the clock" game. Unless it is poolday.
  - geon 9y ago
    It is very rare to have the clock run down. The time mechanic is there only to limit the round time. Most of the time either team is eliminated, or the bomb goes off/is defused.
TheGRS 9y ago
Not so, PUBG is one of the most popular games right now and is based primarily around player elimination. Though they don't make you wait around to see the end of the match.
- 9y ago

philsnow 9y ago

Consider Monopoly: it has an elimination mechanic but it's almost a mercy, because quite often in games you know from a few minutes in that you're not going to win. I'm thinking of race for the galaxy here: whoever's engine gets started first pretty much walks away with the game, but you still have to play twenty more minutes of the game.

SubiculumCode 9y ago
Comparing RFTG to Monopoly made me barf up a little, frankly.
- viridian 9y ago
  Monopoly isn't even a bad game if you do this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15822820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15822820 Somehow a particular set of house rules got popular enough to make everyone hate monopoly. It turns a game of high stakes, high commitment resource scuffling, into a game where you either get knocked out fast or are given enough free assets that you can only lose in the slowest, most agonizing way possible. It's kind of funny how a game designed to heavily favor aggression to make a point had that entire point negated by house rules.
  - lmm 9y ago
    People feel the need to introduce a social safety net into a game of red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalism. Maybe the game made its point after all.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/02/introducing-modern-money-monopoly-mmm.html http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/02/introducing-moder... An interesting read
jknoepfler 9y ago
Games that lack meaningful player interaction generally struggle to create interesting rubber-banding. It's a very tricky thing to get right (king-making in 3+ player games is a huge problem that tends to tug against allowing strong player interactions - consider 2-player chess vs. 4-player chess)

dawnbreez 9y ago

As someone who plays a "competitive" first-person shooter (Counter-Strike: Global Offensive) I can say that at least one game does the exact opposite. Players compete directly, and elimination is for the rest of a ~5 minute "round", meaning that failure is a harsh punishment. However, other games do it differently--Quake 3, for instance, featured near-instant "respawning", such that a player is never eliminated, only reset (and because the player's starting resources are enough to eliminate another player, it's possible to recover quickly). Strategy games and RPGs typically play much more like early boardgames, with elimination being a major setback or even a "game over" state, and conflict being direct combat. Fighting games are direct and brutal, and typically you lose the game after two or perhaps three eliminations--but the game moves so fast that a whole game may be over in two minutes, so elimination is a non-issue as far as not getting to continue play. Where boardgames solve it by making the "time to elimination" as long as possible relative to the game, videogames solve this by allowing players to return to the game quickly.

b0rsuk 9y ago

Player elimination is uncommon in so-called "eurogames". These tend to be some kind of race for victory points. "ameritrash" games revel in drama, frequently feature dice rolls and very random outcomes. Both approaches have their fans.

Joe-Z 9y ago
It's a bit sad that ameritrash sounds demeaning. I'm a fan of bringing some randomness into games (big fan of games including dice or card draws). My super-into-boardgames-friends seem to prefer "eurogames", but for me that's often too convoluted. I want to have fun and not plan some grand scheme to trump everyone else (I have enough planning and carefulness in my job already).
- kzrdude 9y ago
  It's a ridiculous term that is just mean, no reason to use it. I'm sad too.
- Ntrails 9y ago
  A little bit of luck is really helpful in allowing for diversity in game flow. Something like a mechanic where resources open up on one of 3 random turns means it's harder to reproduce an optimal strategy etc. Obviously luck is not necessary for a good game, but I do think it makes certain elements of game design easier.
- s0rce 9y ago
  This is often my feeling, if the game is too involved, too technical and requires extensive thinking and manual reading then it feels like work. Similarly, baking also feels like working in the lab (I'm a scientist).
- b0rsuk 9y ago
  There are varying shades of luck and even methods to apply randomness. One way of classification: * you can do what you want, but success chance is random * action choice is random, success is deterministic I prefer the second approach. Your options are limited, but whatever you do, works. I think eurogames use the second way more often. Yes, the term "ameritrash" is intentionally derogatory (I didn't come up with it). Can you propose a better term ?

bcoates 9y ago

The 1955 Parker Brothers game "Careers" is weirdly ahead of its time in this way, it's roll-and-move (looks like Monopoly) but each player chooses their own, hidden, victory condition to win. It's the norm for everyone in a 4 player game to still think they have a shot at winning right up until someone reveals that they have won. I've always wanted a decent Civ-style computer game that did that, it would solve the "diplomatic AI in a zero-sum game makes no sense" problem. Careers has way too much of a luck component and not enough direct competition for serious gamers but for a light family game it's basically a not terrible version of Monopoly or Life. Edit: also from the designer of Careers: invented language Loglan. I guess there's something to the "language as cooperative game" theory.

aaron-santos 9y ago
Hidden victory conditions can be great at keeping players engaged until the winning player makes the reveal. Dead of Winter and Archipelago are great examples of this at work. Your response reminded me of another theme common among designer boardgames: the manipulation of randomness. It's common to see non-replacement probabilities like drawing from a stack of cards or a bag of chits, and less common to see unmodifiable die rolls. Non-replacement randomness is an easy way to include a strategic component to what could otherwise be boring die rolls. If dice are used, often it's possible to manipulate the results post-roll a la The Castles of Burgundy and many other Stefan Feld games.