[HN Gopher] Stardew Valley: The Board Game - a loving production...
___________________________________________________________________
Stardew Valley: The Board Game - a loving production but a mixed
review
Author : Tomte
Score : 33 points
Date : 2021-05-29 15:41 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| yhoneycomb wrote:
| Seems to me like they tried to do WAY too much. Sure, many board
| games are complex, but there is usually a necessary complexity to
| them - for the price of a steeper learning curve, you get game
| mechanics that are more fun.
|
| In this case, there are 24 different vegetables to grow. That is
| just way too much in my opinion. How many times would you have to
| play the game to start appreciating the differences between each
| vegetable?
|
| Not to mention - yes, $55 is fair market value for a decently
| complex board game. But the video game itself is only $15 and is
| probably more fun.
|
| If I want to play a resource-gathering game, I think I'll stick
| to Settlers of Catan - a tried and true classic with just 5
| resource cards.
|
| (Just want to make it clear - I'm not saying Catan is the end-
| all, be-all of board games. But it proves that you can have a
| fun, complex board game with just 5 resource cards.)
| Tomte wrote:
| > But the video game itself is only $15 and is probably more
| fun.
|
| I tried it on iPad and was instantly overwhelmed.
|
| I did not know that after 2am I'm falling unconscious. I felt I
| walked out of my farm plot into town and back, and the day was
| over. Which it was only because I didn't find my way back to
| the farm. Is there really no marker on the mini map where I'm
| standing?
|
| The next day I learned to fish, spent all my money, in order
| not to starve, and decided that the game was no fun for me.
|
| Maybe with a gentler onboarding it would have played out
| differently, maybe I'm just not the type for it.
| brianwawok wrote:
| It's a pretty easy game. Sure you pass out once or twice
| learning how time works. If they made the game much easier, I
| think it's just staring at a screen of grass.
| Tomte wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_(video_game) was
| successful :-)
| syntheticnature wrote:
| IMO, I think it's easier to onboard with a controller than
| the compromises of touch controls. (I suppose you might be
| using a controller on the iPad.)
|
| Of course, at the same time, it's also been getting features
| added for years and years now.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > The next day I learned to fish, spent all my money, in
| order not to starve, and decided that the game was no fun for
| me
|
| It is literally impossible to starve in the game. Starvation
| is not a mechanic.
|
| Unless something has changed dramatically since last time I
| played.
| tetha wrote:
| > (Just want to make it clear - I'm not saying Catan is the
| end-all, be-all of board games. But it proves that you can have
| a fun, complex board game with just 5 resource cards.)
|
| Hm, you're now making me think. Even with the more complex
| board games and more complex mechanics, I am struggling to find
| a successful board game that has more than 5ish resources. And
| a lot of the simpler games have a lot less.
|
| Even Terraforming Mars "just" has 6 if I recall right, food
| chain magnate - depending on how you count - has 6ish.
| Prehistoric has 5ish. Spirit island has less. Something like
| the old arkham horror version is harder to count due to
| inventory management, but you're still juggling just 4-5
| things.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Agricola/Caverna has a pretty large number of resources. For
| Caverna, off the top of my head: Food, gold, wood, stone,
| ore, rubies, wheat, vegetables, sheep, donkeys, cows, dogs,
| and pigs... (And, of course, workers, time and space are
| kinds of resources, as well.)
| vmception wrote:
| I caved to socializing with my friends that were into "game
| nights".
|
| What I learned is that the board game scene is ridiculous and
| obtuse. That's after learning there is a board game scene at all.
|
| Insanely complex and stressful games where it isn't clear if you
| are competing with the other players as opposed to competing with
| surviving the mechanics of the game itself. Where you need an
| entire round of reconciliation just to understand what the
| "score" was, for the slight gratification of knowing who won.
|
| I can appreciate a game, I just don't think I can appreciate why
| this is a scene at all. How often is anybody playing these games?
| Why do people feel like they can make and launch board games
| themselves now, aside from enthusiasts pre-ordering a single run
| of a game on Kickstarter that nobody else will ever buy?
| skinnyarms wrote:
| I have a lot of fun with friends playing games like this.
|
| Sometimes learning the rules can be tedious and annoying, but
| the more you play different games the more you see the same
| mechanics come up and it makes it easier. For us, the highs are
| worth the lows. We aren't the only ones either, the market is
| doing well: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/board-
| games-market-...
|
| You and your friends might be better served with a more casual
| game...or maybe it's just not your thing.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Board games have a number of interesting problems to solve. As
| a designer, you are often trying to simulate a particular kind
| of 'interesting' system in a way that's fun, engaging, and
| simple enough to run by moving a few pieces of cardboard around
| (while perhaps slightly drunk). It's a fascinating design
| space.
|
| Occasionally a new game comes around with a fascinating new
| core game mechanic, which often solves a core design problem in
| an entirely new way. And then you'll see a few years of other
| games imitating the initial innovation... Often the
| 'originator' game may be pretty simple, to show off the new
| technique, and the followers steadily add complexity. People
| who play a lot of board games tend to pick up rules faster, due
| to knowing a lot of common mechanics already, and have a higher
| tolerance for complexity.
|
| Here's four great games which are pretty easy to learn and
| solved a problem in an interesting way.
|
| Settlers of Catan: Introduced 'early stopping' via victory
| points to avoid having 'dead' players stuck at the table,
| waiting for things to draw down. (Think of how terrible the
| end-game is in Risk or Monopoly.)
|
| Seven Wonders: It's really awful playing a turn-based game with
| more than four players... What if everyone takes their turns at
| the same time?
|
| Dominion: The best part of magic the gathering is building your
| deck, but - because of the CCG format - the playing field is
| really uneven. What if building your deck was part of the game?
|
| Hanabi: The worst part of cooperative games is that guy who
| just tells everyone what to do. What if you hid some really
| important information from each player, so no one can run the
| table?
| shitloadofbooks wrote:
| As someone with over 500 games (and way more expansions), I
| think your friends put you in over your head. It's akin to any
| other hobby. If you put strong-tasting craft beers into the
| hands of an in-experienced beer drinker, they'll have a similar
| experience.
|
| There are hundreds of "gateway" games and thousands of
| fantastic middle-weight games with elegant minimalistic rules
| which are still thinky and satisfying. Otherwise, there's
| millions of lighter games, which just act as a prop to get
| together and socialise without being the center of the night.
|
| And as someone who made and launched a game "by myself" (with a
| friend) that sold ~1000-1500 copies, why would anyone make
| anything? Why make a JS library that only 1000 people will use
| when FAANG can have a team do it? Pure creation, the enjoyment?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-30 23:01 UTC)