Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Games That Won't Go Away

Usually when I find a game that piques my interest, I add it to my Want List, research it for quite a bit, then either mark it as Wanted or remove it from my list forever. A few games, however, seem to be a little more tenacious. A random image, or post, or podcast renews my interest in the game, and I start looking at it again. Some games gain and lose my attention several times.

Being an obsessive person, I am starting to think it's better to potentially waste a small amount of money on a game I can't get out of my head rather than lose sleep over games I might or might not buy.

Antike: The boards are beautiful, the rondel mechanism is very cool, the rules are at least B+ on my scale, and I really feel I should own at least one civ-type game. I was on the fence for a long time. Chris Farrell made some excellent points and got me to drop it. Scott Nicholson's vlog got me interested again. I think it's time.

Lock 'N Load: Band of Heroes: As I've said elsewhere, I've been looking for a nice clean squad-level wargame for a long time. I've been critical of the rules, and concerned over some of the component quality. The game has been well-received by most people that I've read. It does fall quite short of what serious wargamers consider to be accurate simulation, especially with regards to defensive fire. But for an honest first go at a wargame, I don't think it can really be too far off the mark for me. At a minimum, it would give me some foundation upon which to base future wargaming choices. And, with some luck, I may find that it's just what I'm looking for.

Shadows Over Camelot: Everything about this game wants me to buy it, with the exception of the collaboration rules. I seriously dislike subjectivity in games. The notion of having to basically play the game with different "house rules" with every group knots my stomach. But I will always regret not trying it if I don't get it. Since I am the game buyer and the game teacher in my groups, it's up to me. I will have to somehow come up with a set of objective collaboration rules that do not squash the fun of the game.

$150 for peace of mind is a good trade.

[Antike image by garyjames]

5 Comments:

At 7:32 PM, Blogger Friendless said...

When I play Shadows Over Camelot, the collaboration rules we use are retrospective
"don't say stuff like that"s. It's not like the game breaks if people do say too much, so it's best to try to get people into the spirit of the rules rather than worry about them too precisely.

 
At 10:43 PM, Blogger Ryan Walberg said...

Try really, really hard to play someone else's copy of SoCam. I almost bought it, then I played a game of it, loved it, played another two, and now dislike it strongly.

 
At 11:04 PM, Blogger ekted said...

I was thinking of this kind of rule: If the revealed traitor on his turn can name a specific card in your hand, he gets to discard it. If he is wrong, then a black sword flips to white. This would surely keep knights from being too specific. :)

[partly in jest]

 
At 12:56 AM, Blogger Jason Little said...

I am quite interested in Antike. Looks like a nice civ game with some really interesting quirks and decisions.

But take my word for it, you're not missing ANYTHING out of Shadows Over Camelot except frustration and disappointment. Days of Wonder has a lot to do to overcome their bad reputation from my standpoint.

Yes, their games have stellar components -- but they need them to salvage what they can from the tedious, uninspired gameplay. After the incredible disappointment of Pirate's Cove, Mystery of the Abbey, Ticket to Ride and now Shadows Over Camelot, it's going to take quite a bit to convince me to give Days of Wonder another chance.

 
At 1:13 AM, Blogger ekted said...

Ya ya. I've got a pile of DoW games that I'll never play again. But it's either shell out $30 or waste 50 more hours of my life looking at images and reading posts about it. A good trade, and maybe I'll even get a couple of fun evenings out of it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home