Game Design Question #2

[freetrav]

This isn't really about your opinion on game design, but on games themselves, although I will be using the answers I get as input data for a potential game-design project.

What games do you think aren't as good AS A GAME as their commercial popularity would indicate, and, conversely, what games do you think are better AS GAMES than their commercial popularity would indicate? Since it's hard to define criteria (other than commercial popularity, i.e., copies of the game (or its equipment) sold) for how good a game is, please explain how you made your evaluation(s). I'd like more emphasis on board games (e.g., chess, checkers, pachisi, snakes-and-ladders, goose, Monopoly, Scrabble, etc.) than on other styles (cards, dice, etc.), but comments on those other styles will be welcome as well, as such comments may provide additional insight into what people think makes a game "good" or "bad".

Comments

[glenbarnett.livejournal.com]

My comment is too long so I have split it.

Part I:

David has already hit on the two "bad" games that immediately came to mind for me.

Monopoly is the classic "bad" game. It's really a terrible game. The inevitability of it (halfway into the game timewise you almost always know who will win) sucks - it needs a much better goal than simply eliminating everyone. The lack of strategy is also a problem. If ever there was a premise that should make mileage out of deal-making, this is it. Illuminati (and INWO for that matter - though both have some - relatively lesser - faults) gives some clue as to how to do a better game where you have to screw everyone over, and they go much further to give you opportunity for good dealmaking. The centrality of the screw-your-neighour mechanics don't work well. I've seen feelings hurt in this one; if you're going to do that, the game needs to be otherwise really good, and this one isn't.


Cluedo is a game where the premise/setting has potential but the mechanics don't make for an exciting game. Kill Dr Lucky is a far better game - though it too has a few faults of its own. I would love to see what James Ernest could do with Cluedo itself (i.e. keep the premise, do the game from scratch).

Pachisi (and other ludo-like games in general, such as Sorry and Trouble) are generally not a whole lot of fun for me. A better premise can help (I've played a dinosaur-based game where the 'getting sent back to the start' is caused by a T-Rex that's (mostly) not affected by the players, reducing the "screw-over" factor, making it a litte better for kids (fewer hurt feelings). These games also need more strategy and at least some form of interaction other than land on someone and send them back to the start.

Some of the "German games" have decent gameplay, and often innovative mechanics. A few are too complicated for the relative benefit. I think the problem with the German games is generally that the public is unaware of them - outside of Europe they are popular within the group of hardcore 'gamers' (the sort of person that would look at boardgamegeek.com or play RPGs and go to specialist game stores), but mostly unknown outside it.

(I know it's a card game but...) A couple of years ago I would have said Apples to Apples was a classic example of a game much less popular than it should be, but it does seem to be gaining some recognition now.

Cheapass games are often much better than their price or popularity suggests. A few of them are only worth what they actually cost, but many of them are much better games than their price suggests.

Scrabble is a popular game, and I think deservedly so. It went through a pretty long development phase before it became a popular game, and it shows. If I was designing a game like that now, I'd do several things slightly differently, but I think the game stands up very well. There's a tradeoff between tactics and strategy (scoring more now often screws up your rack for next turn, hunting for a 7 letter word that you can nearly play can hold you down to a lot of substandard moves in the interim), there's a degree of screwing with your opponent, but you often also screw with yourself when you do it (and the more you interfere with them the more incentive they have to do it back) - so choosing to screw with your opponent is strategic (I'm 30 points ahead, now's the time to tighten the board) as well as tactical (like taking a lesser-scoring word so your opponent can't snag that triple word score they're eyeing). It's a game that works fine two player and for 3-4 players, and that's fairly rare.