Gaming board games
-
I've played a few. There's one called something like "A house on super haunted hill house haunt" or something, which we played but was ... honestly pretty lame. It took like... 45 minutes to set up the over-complicated "haunt", and literally 1-turn for the non-haunted players to win afterwards. I have a co-worker who loves it.
The other games we played I honestly can't remember the name of. (One was a card game where some players tried to sabotage the mission by the others? Vampires maybe?) My friend's "board games night" only lasted about 2 sessions before it turned into "eh whatever" night and mostly involved drinking booze.
-
I've played a few. There's one called something like "A house on super haunted hill house haunt" or something, which we played but was ... honestly pretty lame. It took like... 45 minutes to set up the over-complicated "haunt", and literally 1-turn for the non-haunted players to win afterwards. I have a co-worker who loves it.
That'd be Betrayal at House on the Hill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MINNKyE4fjs
The other games we played I honestly can't remember the name of. (One was a card game where some players tried to sabotage the mission by the others? Vampires maybe?) My friend's "board games night" only lasted about 2 sessions before it turned into "eh whatever" night and mostly involved drinking booze.
That'd be... probably Resistance. Maybe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_QRczGzXqw
Makes me wonder if your friends get their game ideas from Wil Wheaton.
-
Oh who knows. I enjoyed bullshitting and drinking mead much more than playing the games anyway.
-
@tar said:
Too busy enjoying a game of backgammon?
Nope, I only play chess.
Why? You can get a robot to play chess for you, and it'll finish the game in a much quicker time than you can. Solved problem, etc...
-
-
Why? You can get a robot to play chess for you, and it'll finish the game in a much quicker time than you can. Solved problem, etc...
So's backgammon. Just get someone who enjoys it to play instead of me.
-
Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.
That took a while. Expected that reference waaay earlier
-
@asdf said:
@tar said:
Too busy enjoying a game of backgammon?
Nope, I only play chess.
Why? You can get a robot to play chess for you, and it'll finish the game in a much quicker time than you can. Solved problem, etc...
Backgammon is just as computer-solvable as chess. The only reason there are no backgammon engines on the market is that nobody really gives a shit about backgammon.
-
Why? You can get a robot to play chess for you, and it'll finish the game in a much quicker time than you can. Solved problem, etc...
No, chess is not completely solved yet. And I wasn't planning to ever play a computer anyway, so I just have to outsmart my human opponents. If you win a game of backgammon, you might have just been lucky. If you win a game of chess (against a player who knows WTF (s)he's doing), you've conclusively proved you're smarter than another intelligent being, which is an awesome feeling.*
* That's the reason why chess becomes so addicting when you start to take it seriously and practice regularly.
-
If you win a game of chess (against a player who knows WTF (s)he's doing), you've conclusively proved you're smarter than another intelligent being,
I don't know about that—Rain Man could beat anyone at a game of "count the matches", but I don't think most people would infer he was "conclusively smarter" than anyone else...
-
Chess isn't count the matches.
-
conclusively proved you're smarter than another intelligent being, which is an awesome feeling.*
You might have better tactical prowess, but your opponent might be more knowledgeable about botany, or better at physics. Hell, it could just mean that they have never played chess before. Beating someone at chess says nothing about your relative intelligence level.
-
Hell, it could just mean that they have never played chess before.
To quote myself:
against a player who knows WTF (s)he's doing
Also, I was talking about the feeling you get while doing that, not claiming I'm actually smarter than anyone I've ever beaten in chess.
-
That's a crappy comparison and I have not made any claim like that.
-
Also, I was talking about the feeling you get while doing that, not claiming I'm actually smarter than anyone I've ever beaten in chess.
To quote you:
If you win a game of chess (against a player who knows WTF (s)he's doing), you've conclusively proved you're smarter than another intelligent being, which is an awesome feeling.
Proving conclusively isn't a feeling. This just feels like you've been shown you're full of it, but you're afraid to admit it. Man up and say, "I was wrong." Stop backpedaling.
-
If you win a game of chess (against a player who knows WTF (s)he's doing), you've conclusively proved you're smarter than another intelligent being, which is an awesome feeling.*
I don't necessarily consider people good at chess to be "smarter" than people who aren't. If you made the same claim about, say, DOTA2 people would say you're crazy.
-
Not to forget, logical thinking and strategizing can be offset by memorization in chess.
With memorization being something computers are incredibly good at.
(Further reading: "Tablebases" and "Opening books")
-
I was thinking that according to asdf's logic, the guy who can beat you at DOTA2 is much SMARTER than the guy who can beat you at chess. DOTA2 has like 40 different units, each one of which has 4 different skills, and something like 6 inventory slots. The game runs in real-time instead of being turn-based on the timer. The "board" is something like 4000x4000 positions. It has experience points and currency.
If DOTA2 appeared in a lazily-written 80s TV show (which I think is where the idea that people good at chess are "smarter" comes from), then it would be used to establish a character as a super genius.
Of course a well-written TV show would eschew the relationship between chess and smartness altogether. Like that episode of Next Generation where Data beats the "strategima" expert not because he's better at the game, but because he plays like an asshole until the expert gets mad and forfeits.
-
I don't necessarily consider people good at chess to be "smarter" than people who aren't. If you made the same claim about, say, DOTA2 people would say you're crazy.
Yeah, I don't really understand why people like to make such extravagant claims about chess, as if being good at it is some super-high level of human intellectual prowess. It's just memorization of a problem space.
-
Proving conclusively isn't a feeling. This just feels like you've been shown you're full of it, but you're afraid to admit it. Man up and say, "I was wrong." Stop backpedaling.
I thought the hyperbole was obvious when I wrote it, but now that I read it again, it sounds arrogant and wrong. So I'm sorry for writing something that came across as arrogant. But I'm not backpedaling, this honestly is what I meant all the time.
-
Next time, I'm gonna consult a lawyer before writing anything here.
I have to admit that you have a point, though. If you're good at video games that require strategic thinking, that does say something about your intelligence.
-
Not to forget, logical thinking and strategizing can be offset by memorization in chess.
That's only partially true. It helps you in the opening (in fact, you should learn the first few moves of common openings by heart). After that, in the middlegame, you have to think for yourself. Recognizing certain patterns certainly helps, but memorizing a series of moves for the middlegame is just silly. Also, I'm shit at memorizing things, so I have to resort to logical thinking and strategy anyway.
-
I think if you don't look at in terms of innate ability, but rather to think about what it takes to build skill in chess it starts to make sense. Like: the main thing that it takes to win at chess, given equal knowledge, is that you have to be willing to think more than the other player. So if a person is good at chess, that means that they enjoy thinking and/or memorizing, which is probably a better predictor of their ability to be an expert at something than their iq.
-
If you're good at video games that require strategic thinking, that does say something about your intelligence.
What?
I double-dog dare you to answer that.
-
What?
Intelligence consists of many components, and I'd say that the ability to solve complex problems is one of them. So if you're good at strategy games that require you to solve a complex problem more quickly or better than your opponent, that does say something positive about that component of your intelligence.*
*Note that I don't know anything about DOTA, so I don't know whether the above applies to that specific game. Also, I'm not claiming that beating a particular person at a particular game necessarily means you're smarter than that person, although being good at strategy games in general might be a good indicator that you're not an idiot.
-
Aww, I thought it was a subtle burn.
Well, yes. If you waste enough time on games to get that good at them it certainly says something about your inteligence *snicker*
-
40
110 actually, but that's beside the point, and that doesn't include neutrals. Or items (137, not including Aegis and Cheese since those can't be bought)
-
-
-
-
If you start your own bank, are you allowed to do the fractional reserve thing? That might make it quite entertaining.
-
of course!
if i'm going to be a bank i may as well do the whole thing (including rescue packages)
-
You'd probably need one player needs to be the government's legislative branch, and another to play the role of the IMF.
-
TBH, though, I'm almost as interested in writing a framework as I am in making an actual game. I've made a couple of attempts, but abandoned them before I got very far; it's a lot of work, and life and stuff tends to get in the way.
Maybe you could post some details (preferred language, OS/platform(s) you want it to run on, features the framework should have, ...) in Coding Help and see if anyone is interested in collaborating?
-
I've played a few. There's one called something like "A house on super haunted hill house haunt" or something, which we played but was ... honestly pretty lame. It took like... 45 minutes to set up the over-complicated "haunt", and literally 1-turn for the non-haunted players to win afterwards. I have a co-worker who loves it.
As @powerlord already posted, that's "Betrayal at House on the Hill".
Sometimes the game goes as you describe: long setup phase, dull and short haunting phase. On average it's pretty balanced and sometimes the opposite of what you describe happens: a really cool haunting with both the betrayer and survivors having a fair chance of winning.
Because of the randomness in the decision when the haunting starts, who the betrayer is and what scenario is played, you get a boring run from time to time.If you don't like to play board games that much, then this game probably won't change that. If you do like to play, you should given BaHotH another chance.
The first impression you got from the game is not representative of how the game usually plays out.
-
Thanks for the summary, I am seriously contemplating buying the game
-
The problem with this is that if your opponents see that a "run on the bank" will cause you to become bankrupt; they will probably do it.
-
Thanks for the summary, I am seriously contemplating buying the game
<fanboy>DOOOOOO EEEEEEEET</fanboy>
If you want to expand the game, you can download 20 extra haunt scenarios here.
The site looks like ass, but the haunts themselves are quite balanced and well done (even better than some of the original scenarios).You might also want to get the revised scenario booklets from the publisher's website.
-
Well this is why we need a guy playing the government... to specify the rules on the ratio of how much the banker can lend, given the reserves he has available.
Assuming you have stuck to the rules, you don't lose, the government bails you out. Likewise, if the government doesn't have any money, the IMF steps in.
We could probably also find some way to model sub-prime mortgage trading.
-
Are we designing a board game or an economy simulator?
Do we need a new topic?
-
I wasn't planning to ever play a computer anyway
It's trivially easy. Go for a very short amount of time on the clock and run the game straight off into the unexplored weeds as fast as you can. The computer player will bog down trying to analyse a position it's never been coded to handle well and you'll win when it runs out of time.
I prefer games where all the parties involved have massively incomplete information. Those are much more fun IMO than ones like chess.
-
I prefer games where all the parties involved have massively incomplete information. Those are much more fun IMO than ones like chess.
I don't know if I would necessarily say "massive," but yes, that can add a lot of fun to a game and requires a somewhat different skill set.
-
We used to play the Civilization board game quite a bit before we had kids.
-
We used to play the Civilization board game quite a bit before we had kids.
It's OK. Advanced Civilization, now....
-
It's OK. Advanced Civilization, now....
Actually, I think the one we had was this from 2002
-
I remember seeing that, but never pulled the trigger on buying it. How was it?
-
It's been 10 years since I played it but I remember it being good. I haven't played a lot of this type of game (e.g. Risk) so haven't much to compare it to.
-
@OffByOne said in Gaming board games:
Thanks for the summary, I am seriously contemplating buying the game
<fanboy>DOOOOOO EEEEEEEET</fanboy>
If you want to expand the game, you can download 20 extra haunt scenarios here.
The site looks like ass, but the haunts themselves are quite balanced and well done (even better than some of the original scenarios).You might also want to get the revised scenario booklets from the publisher's website.
So, I got the game as you suggested (a while ago actually), and was not disappointed. This is not the reason I'm necro'ing this topic, however. The reason is this, if you are interested. I certainly am:
Betrayal at House on the Hill: Widow's Walk
/pic4084221.jpg)
Expands Betrayal at House on the Hill by adding the roof level, and 50 new haunts.
-
Only played about four games of it so far, but:
Vast: The Crystal Caverns
/pic2962290.jpg)
Where a knight, dragon, cave, goblins, or thief, prepare for an asymmetric battle.
Has been quite fun.
-
My favorite game ATM:
Space Alert
Author: Vlaada Chvátil Year: 2008 Players: 1--5 Age: 12+ Time: 30 mins Theme: exploration spaceship, interstellar combat Mechanics: cooperation, team survival, soundtrack, adjustable difficulty Expansions: The New Frontier
Advanced Civilization - Wikipedia
/pic354953.jpg)
