ptevis
Moderator
Registered: 12/09/05
Posts: 201
| |
chadu
Freshman
Registered: 15/10/05
Posts: 9
|
| | 28/10/05 at 02:28 PM | Reply with quote | #2 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ptevisEpisode 19... the issue of "weight." So, we have two definitions thus far: A. Weight = Amount of needed concentration/thinking. B. Weight = Number of rules; ease of play. to that I'd consider adding (for some people): C. Weight = Overall tone of the rules/setting. Included in "tone" would be mood of rules & setting, feeling of closed-ness/open-ness of ruleset & setting, and feeling of rigidity/flexibility of rules & setting. Personally, I combine all three -- A, B, and C -- when I talk about weight. CU
__________________
Chad Underkoffler [ chadu@yahoo.com ]
** Atomic Sock Monkey Press [ http://www.atomicsockmonkey.com ] **
** Live Journal [ http://www.livejournal.com/users/chadu/ ] **
"Pardon me while I have a strange interlude." -- Groucho Marx |
| Loading... | |
ouch
Freshman
Registered: 25/10/05
Posts: 7
|
| | 28/10/05 at 08:02 PM | Reply with quote | #3 |
|
| Best episode yet!
Power Grid looks like a great game!
The board has different colors for various regions. Does this represent any playing boundary?
--------
I see weight as a measure of complexity.
If a game requires a great deal of background research and lengthy rules for various scenarios is heavy.
When a game requires very little time to "get up to speed" it is light.
An example is the classic Freecell card game on nearly every computer; the rules can be learned quickly, but the strategy and planning ahead can be mentally challenging. |
| Loading... | |
ptevis
Moderator
Registered: 12/09/05
Posts: 201
| |
mlanza
Freshman
Registered: 29/10/05
Posts: 2
|
| | 29/10/05 at 06:21 PM | Reply with quote | #5 |
|
Well, I have to say I primarily side with your wife's view that "weight" refers to the required brainpower expenditure. There is often a correlation to the number of mechanics in the game and intricacy with which they interrelate. This intricacy in heavier games means that I'll have to be considering more things in order to make solid decisions.
What you describe as weight -- the number of rules and the difficulty of remembering them -- I see as "complexity." Often having a large rule set will result in a heavier game, but there is not necessarily a direct relationship between rule set size and weight. Take Chess. It offers just a few rules that can be taught in only a few minutes, but offers the dedicated enthusiast a lifetime of learning its depth. Chess is heavy because of the depth of its considerations. Its option tree is deeper and wider than the number of cells in the human brain.
In short, weight tells me how many factors and/or choices I must routinely consider and analyze in order to play well. Heavy games present more factors and choices and so I must expend more brainpower.
|
| Loading... | |
ptevis
Moderator
Registered: 12/09/05
Posts: 201
| |
Mur
Moderator
Registered: 12/09/05
Posts: 170
|
| | 31/10/05 at 09:37 PM | Reply with quote | #7 |
|
I am trying to figure out why I am the only person in the world who doesn't like power grid. We played it the other night, it was the second time for me, and it just didn't appeal to me.
Then again, I'm also the only person who didn't like Ticket To Ride, so I'm clearly deranged...
__________________
Mur Lafferty
~
Geek Fu Action Grip http://www.geekfuactiongrip.com
I Should Be Writing http://www.ishouldbewriting.com
Great Rejection Challenge of 2006: 4 |
| Loading... | |
JackSlack
Freshman
Registered: 29/09/05
Posts: 9
|
| | 31/10/05 at 10:34 PM | Reply with quote | #8 |
|
I'd have to agree with you, Paul. The issue is the complexity of rules rather than their implications.
We often talk of games being 'system light' or 'rules light' but rarely 'strategy light' and I think this is the key. Obviously it's a confused term, by someone anyway, but I think the idea of it referring to complexity of rules is the key. I'd consider Go 'lighter' than Chess, although Go is more strategically complex.
The counterpoint to this is 'depth', which refers to a game's strategic complexity. I'd consider Go a deeper game than Chess. 'Shallow' does not mean bad, however. Give Me the Brain is incredibly shallow but very fun.
In fact, I'd actually argue weight is the real good/bad term, at least for me. I can think of lots of shallow games that are a lot of fun because they're light, shallow, throwaway fun. By contrast, heavy games that are actually any good? I'm hard pressed to think of any. |
| Loading... | |
ptevis
Moderator
Registered: 12/09/05
Posts: 201
|
| | 01/11/05 at 10:34 AM | Reply with quote | #9 |
|
Mur,
You are clearly deranged, but not for not liking Power Grid. My problem with Power Grid is that players can think too much. Or rather, it is possible to do well in the game by spending a lot of time considering what to do, as you have almost perfect information. This isn't how I play, however. I introduced Power Grid to a friend of mine this weekend, and she didn't care for too much either. She recommended El Grande instead, which I look forward to trying out.
Now, Ticket to Ride on the other hand. . .
--Paul
__________________
Paul Tevis
Have Games, Will Travel @ http://www.havegameswilltravel.net
The Voice of the Revolution @ http://www.thevoiceoftherevolution.com |
| Loading... | |
mlanza
Freshman
Registered: 29/10/05
Posts: 2
|
| | 09/11/05 at 11:18 AM | Reply with quote | #10 |
|
How about making the correlation that a weighty game (being heavy) is a more difficult burden to carry than a lighter one? I rarely struggle with remembering all the rules to the Eurogames I play. The difficulty (the weight) comes from all the considerations I am grinding.
|
| Loading... | |
