6 ms·

How many modern games are two-player asymmetrical? I only know of Android: Netrunner. I hope we can continue learning more concrete rules for the ancient versi

by cjslep 8y ago

How many modern games are two-player asymmetrical? I only know of Android: Netrunner. I hope we can continue learning more concrete rules for the ancient version of this game. It would be nice to have its history understood like chess'.

jamesgeck0 8y ago
Steve Jackson Games first title was _Ogre_, a tactics game that pit an entire army against a single super unit. Mr. Jack is another reasonably popular modern one. The asymmetric tag on Board Game Geek is probably a good place to start. https://boardgamegeek.com/tag/asymmetric/page/1 https://boardgamegeek.com/tag/asymmetric/page/1
- harlanlewis 8y ago
  Love board game geek. A little buried on that page is a link to ranked list of asymmetric games: https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/82677/asymmetric-games https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/82677/asymmetric-games
smogcutter 8y ago
Wargames come to mind, both in board game and miniatures/tabletop form. There are loads, but here's an example: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/62222/commands-colors-napoleonics https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/62222/commands-colors-na...
formalsystem 8y ago
I believe Viking chess is the first recorded example of an asymmetrical game. In more modern times, many RTS games are asymmetrical: think SC2, Dota etc.. If you're thinking about board games, in particular, there's games like Terra Mystica or most miniature games that are designed with a vast number of factions that have differing goals. Asymmetrical games are in fact hugely popular because they let people roleplay strategies that they may think are more fun
a1369209993 8y ago
Strictly speaking most modern (two-player) games are two-player asymmetrical, since one player has a first-mover advantage. Not what you meant of course, but worth considering; it's somewhat hard to make a game that's strictly symmetric.
- Someone 8y ago
  Rock-paper-scissors is strictly symmetrical. Diplomacy would be, if started on a symmetrical map. Also, take any two-player game, and create a new game where the players play the original game twice, switching sides, and you end up with a symmetrical game. If you play both games in parallel, where each player can choose in which source game to play on each turn, I think you still end up with a symmetrical game (in some sense)
hollerith 8y ago
Starcraft (provided the players aren't both playing the same species).
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Although even then both players pretty much have similar tools, similar resources, and similar goals. ("Gather minerals and gas, build a base and an army, destroy the other player's base and army.") I can't offhand think of any videogames that are radically asymmetric (e.g. one guy is playing an RTS, the other is playing a shooter), though I'm sure there's something.
  - jamesgeck0 8y ago
    There are a few of them. _Spy Party_ is a game in which one player is a sniper and the other player is a spy at a cocktail party pretending to be an NPC. In _Who's Your Daddy_, one player is a father whose goal is child-proof their surroundings on the fly to thwart the other player, a suicidal baby. _Evolve_ was a game in which a team of four hunter players hunted a single monster player. _Natural Selection_ is close to what you describe; one player on each team is playing an RTS and their teammates are playing a FPS. One side is space marines, the other are aliens. Marines have guns, but aliens can move through vents, scuttle up walls, etc.
tialaramex 8y ago
Many modern games are asymmetrical to some extent, although this does make "balancing" the game (often an important QA element of good games) more difficult. Most modern territory control games will be somewhat asymmetrical because the territory isn't just abstract squares, hexes or whatever. For example in "London" players control London boroughs, and so this influences the play slightly. That would be at the very mildest end of the spectrum. On the other end you have things like Star Wars Imperial Assault, where one person is playing the Empire while all other players control Rebels, their objectives are obviously very different (Imperial players generally seek to incapacitate the players or stall them until overwhelming forces become available, Rebels usually want to act quickly and use the element of surprise). You also have some very non-crunchy games like Zendo. In Zendo one person is a "master" who has chosen some secret rule for what gives configurations of game pieces the "Buddha nature", everybody else makes new configurations and uses a process of asking questions or making guesses to try to figure out what the rule is. Some simple play mechanics keep this structured, but it's not really a competitive game at all.
LyndsySimon 8y ago
Tic-tac-toe comes to mind...

by cjslep 8y ago

jamesgeck0 8y ago

Steve Jackson Games first title was _Ogre_, a tactics game that pit an entire army against a single super unit. Mr. Jack is another reasonably popular modern one. The asymmetric tag on Board Game Geek is probably a good place to start. https://boardgamegeek.com/tag/asymmetric/page/1 https://boardgamegeek.com/tag/asymmetric/page/1

harlanlewis 8y ago
Love board game geek. A little buried on that page is a link to ranked list of asymmetric games: https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/82677/asymmetric-games https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/82677/asymmetric-games

smogcutter 8y ago

Wargames come to mind, both in board game and miniatures/tabletop form. There are loads, but here's an example: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/62222/commands-colors-napoleonics https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/62222/commands-colors-na...

formalsystem 8y ago

I believe Viking chess is the first recorded example of an asymmetrical game. In more modern times, many RTS games are asymmetrical: think SC2, Dota etc.. If you're thinking about board games, in particular, there's games like Terra Mystica or most miniature games that are designed with a vast number of factions that have differing goals. Asymmetrical games are in fact hugely popular because they let people roleplay strategies that they may think are more fun

a1369209993 8y ago

Strictly speaking most modern (two-player) games are two-player asymmetrical, since one player has a first-mover advantage. Not what you meant of course, but worth considering; it's somewhat hard to make a game that's strictly symmetric.

Someone 8y ago
Rock-paper-scissors is strictly symmetrical. Diplomacy would be, if started on a symmetrical map. Also, take any two-player game, and create a new game where the players play the original game twice, switching sides, and you end up with a symmetrical game. If you play both games in parallel, where each player can choose in which source game to play on each turn, I think you still end up with a symmetrical game (in some sense)

hollerith 8y ago

Starcraft (provided the players aren't both playing the same species).

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Although even then both players pretty much have similar tools, similar resources, and similar goals. ("Gather minerals and gas, build a base and an army, destroy the other player's base and army.") I can't offhand think of any videogames that are radically asymmetric (e.g. one guy is playing an RTS, the other is playing a shooter), though I'm sure there's something.
- jamesgeck0 8y ago
  There are a few of them. _Spy Party_ is a game in which one player is a sniper and the other player is a spy at a cocktail party pretending to be an NPC. In _Who's Your Daddy_, one player is a father whose goal is child-proof their surroundings on the fly to thwart the other player, a suicidal baby. _Evolve_ was a game in which a team of four hunter players hunted a single monster player. _Natural Selection_ is close to what you describe; one player on each team is playing an RTS and their teammates are playing a FPS. One side is space marines, the other are aliens. Marines have guns, but aliens can move through vents, scuttle up walls, etc.

tialaramex 8y ago

Many modern games are asymmetrical to some extent, although this does make "balancing" the game (often an important QA element of good games) more difficult. Most modern territory control games will be somewhat asymmetrical because the territory isn't just abstract squares, hexes or whatever. For example in "London" players control London boroughs, and so this influences the play slightly. That would be at the very mildest end of the spectrum. On the other end you have things like Star Wars Imperial Assault, where one person is playing the Empire while all other players control Rebels, their objectives are obviously very different (Imperial players generally seek to incapacitate the players or stall them until overwhelming forces become available, Rebels usually want to act quickly and use the element of surprise). You also have some very non-crunchy games like Zendo. In Zendo one person is a "master" who has chosen some secret rule for what gives configurations of game pieces the "Buddha nature", everybody else makes new configurations and uses a process of asking questions or making guesses to try to figure out what the rule is. Some simple play mechanics keep this structured, but it's not really a competitive game at all.

LyndsySimon 8y ago

Tic-tac-toe comes to mind...