And boy does it ever validate. If all fantasy were this well executed and conceptualized, then, um, that'd be ace.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Sintel
To quote the description: Sintel is an independently produced short film, initiated by the Blender Foundation as a means to further improve and validate the free/open source 3D creation suite Blender.
And boy does it ever validate. If all fantasy were this well executed and conceptualized, then, um, that'd be ace.
And boy does it ever validate. If all fantasy were this well executed and conceptualized, then, um, that'd be ace.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Resistance Review: Voltage over Current
I like Werewolf. Quite a bit actually. I’ve not had the opportunity to play it a lot since most groups I game with are Euro players more interested in strategy than player interactions and more irritated than some by the early and repeated player elimination. Getting enough people together to make Werewolf interesting can also be prohibitive, but there’s nothing quite like a well run game of Werewolf with a group that’s willing to really get into it, especially when played at a convention with 30 other people (I won that one, by the way...).
There are a number of recent Euro/Ameri-style games that use a traitor mechanic (including one of my own designs if it ever comes out), and I tend to play a lot more of these due to the reasons above, but they rarely evoke the same level of involvement and pure character analysis that a good game of Werewolf does. The Resistance successfully straddles the line between Werewolf and more "gamer-y" games with a straightforward system that provides significantly more information and clues as to who the "spies" are, while remaining open enough that the interpersonal aspect remains front and centre.
The system is extremely simple, to the point where everyone I brought this out with seemed initially dubious that it would even be interesting. There are two phases of voting in each round, the first done publicly with everybody to determine which players will comprise the "Mission Team," and the second done secretly by the mission team to determine whether that round’s mission was successful. Accidentally putting even one spy on the team is potentially disastrous since it only take one to sabotage a mission, but then again the spy may choose not to do so in order to earn the group’s trust.
Once players get into the swing of things, they may be surprised at the amount of subtlety present. There are a number of different ways to suss out who might be lying, and equally many ways to lie and subtly manipulate. I definitely recommend playing with the plot cards as these are anything but fluff and add a lot of complexity to the deduction while being quite straightforward and adding minimal randomness. The game definitely rewards being able to successfully read people and lie, but it also heavily rewards logical deduction. I frequently made my head spin trying to form an explanation for myself of who the spies were that could even match up with everything I’d seen and heard, regardless of who I suspected, realizing that my two prime suspects couldn’t both be spies, unless Player A was more savvy than I thought...
Despite its simplicity, the game is a tiny bit fiddly. There are several different sets of cards, and the way the mission cards need to be repeatedly sorted and passed around can cause some confusion. I haven’t thought of any solutions, and it’s more than acceptable given the game’s strengths, but it did turn off some players at first. For example, players are asked to close their eyes at the start ala Werewolf to allow spies to identify each other. At first several people scoffed at this as seeming stupid and unnecessary, and there is even a variant in the rules that allows skipping this step, but after a half-dozen plays I definitely think it improves the game in a number of ways if the spies know who each other are from the start.
If I were to point to any serious flaw, it would be that some games are not going to be as interesting as others simply because players get lucky and manage not to send the spies on any missions. This happened in my first game before we had gotten into the groove, and it seemed as though the game was outright broken. This situation is rare though, and the game is short enough that it shouldn’t be a big deal to ride out the occasional session where the resistance just gets lucky and the spies can’t do much except impotently scheme and pretend to look pleased, and if your group has eased into the accusatory spirit then even these less-interesting sessions are still enjoyable.
The game also seems noticeably better with more players. As I say, I’ve only played a few games, but I had a lot more fun with seven players than with six. The deduction becomes a lot more complicated, and there are more people trying to talk at once (which you want in a game like this). More players also makes the above issue occur less frequently.
The Resistance doesn’t quite scratch all the same itches for me that Werewolf does, but it has a number of notable advantages over it, the main one being no player elimination. And while I prefer it with more players, The Resistance does work fine with as few as five, which is not something I can say for Werewolf. It also feels like less of a popularity contest as there is more tangible evidence on which to argue your case (even if you’re a spy).
Despite the fact that there is more information on which to base your decisions, I generally prefer games with a little more "game" to them apart from the social aspect. My favorite hidden roles game is probably Battlestar Galactica since it combines the sociopolitical element with solid tactics and strategy and a well-fleshed-out theme. But it must be noted that Battlestar achieves its level of player involvement largely through it’s considerable gamelength. The Resistance had us vehemently arguing and hurling complex accusations in minutes.
In the end, if these sorts of social deduction games just aren’t your cup of tea, I don’t think The Resistance will convert too many people, but if the concept sounds at all interesting, or if you like Werewolf/Mafia but wish it didn’t have player elimination, then I suggest checking out The Resistance. On the other hand, doing so might put you on some government watch list, so maybe it’s safer if [Message Redacted]
There are a number of recent Euro/Ameri-style games that use a traitor mechanic (including one of my own designs if it ever comes out), and I tend to play a lot more of these due to the reasons above, but they rarely evoke the same level of involvement and pure character analysis that a good game of Werewolf does. The Resistance successfully straddles the line between Werewolf and more "gamer-y" games with a straightforward system that provides significantly more information and clues as to who the "spies" are, while remaining open enough that the interpersonal aspect remains front and centre.
The system is extremely simple, to the point where everyone I brought this out with seemed initially dubious that it would even be interesting. There are two phases of voting in each round, the first done publicly with everybody to determine which players will comprise the "Mission Team," and the second done secretly by the mission team to determine whether that round’s mission was successful. Accidentally putting even one spy on the team is potentially disastrous since it only take one to sabotage a mission, but then again the spy may choose not to do so in order to earn the group’s trust.
Once players get into the swing of things, they may be surprised at the amount of subtlety present. There are a number of different ways to suss out who might be lying, and equally many ways to lie and subtly manipulate. I definitely recommend playing with the plot cards as these are anything but fluff and add a lot of complexity to the deduction while being quite straightforward and adding minimal randomness. The game definitely rewards being able to successfully read people and lie, but it also heavily rewards logical deduction. I frequently made my head spin trying to form an explanation for myself of who the spies were that could even match up with everything I’d seen and heard, regardless of who I suspected, realizing that my two prime suspects couldn’t both be spies, unless Player A was more savvy than I thought...
Despite its simplicity, the game is a tiny bit fiddly. There are several different sets of cards, and the way the mission cards need to be repeatedly sorted and passed around can cause some confusion. I haven’t thought of any solutions, and it’s more than acceptable given the game’s strengths, but it did turn off some players at first. For example, players are asked to close their eyes at the start ala Werewolf to allow spies to identify each other. At first several people scoffed at this as seeming stupid and unnecessary, and there is even a variant in the rules that allows skipping this step, but after a half-dozen plays I definitely think it improves the game in a number of ways if the spies know who each other are from the start.
If I were to point to any serious flaw, it would be that some games are not going to be as interesting as others simply because players get lucky and manage not to send the spies on any missions. This happened in my first game before we had gotten into the groove, and it seemed as though the game was outright broken. This situation is rare though, and the game is short enough that it shouldn’t be a big deal to ride out the occasional session where the resistance just gets lucky and the spies can’t do much except impotently scheme and pretend to look pleased, and if your group has eased into the accusatory spirit then even these less-interesting sessions are still enjoyable.
The game also seems noticeably better with more players. As I say, I’ve only played a few games, but I had a lot more fun with seven players than with six. The deduction becomes a lot more complicated, and there are more people trying to talk at once (which you want in a game like this). More players also makes the above issue occur less frequently.
The Resistance doesn’t quite scratch all the same itches for me that Werewolf does, but it has a number of notable advantages over it, the main one being no player elimination. And while I prefer it with more players, The Resistance does work fine with as few as five, which is not something I can say for Werewolf. It also feels like less of a popularity contest as there is more tangible evidence on which to argue your case (even if you’re a spy).
Despite the fact that there is more information on which to base your decisions, I generally prefer games with a little more "game" to them apart from the social aspect. My favorite hidden roles game is probably Battlestar Galactica since it combines the sociopolitical element with solid tactics and strategy and a well-fleshed-out theme. But it must be noted that Battlestar achieves its level of player involvement largely through it’s considerable gamelength. The Resistance had us vehemently arguing and hurling complex accusations in minutes.
In the end, if these sorts of social deduction games just aren’t your cup of tea, I don’t think The Resistance will convert too many people, but if the concept sounds at all interesting, or if you like Werewolf/Mafia but wish it didn’t have player elimination, then I suggest checking out The Resistance. On the other hand, doing so might put you on some government watch list, so maybe it’s safer if [Message Redacted]
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Sonic Doesn't Need a Story
I'm not sure that Sonic, Mario and Zelda can't and shouldn't be improved by bringing in more compelling narratives than the standard "save the princesses/toads/the woodland creatures" scenarios, but the transition has been demonstrated to be far easier said than done. While Mario has been content for the most part to wallow in the purity of its established formula, the new generation of Sonic games has boldly and consistently explored new horizons, with decidedly mixed results. Mixed enough that Sega has decided to go back to its roots with Sonic 4, which is where Nintendo has been all along.
That's not to say that Nintendo has never ventured outside its comfort zone. The franchise of Mario's RPGs (with the first installment admittedly created by Square) has consistently mixed up Mario's formula, and with good results. But for the most part, Nintendo seems stuck in the 80s, while other once-proud franchises blindly flail around for new ideas, eventually attempt to grab onto their cache of nostalgia like a polyester life-preserver, and are finally lost to the annals of history and the bargain bin (*cough*Mortal Kombat*cough*). Some might attribute Nintendo's recent success solely to their having a larger cache of nostalgia than most to fall back on, but I believe an equally important factor is that for three decades they have been perfecting a way of doing their thing, while by comparison Sonic only ever kind of worked in 3D, and Sega apparently lost the formula after Sonic Adventure 2. It would be ironic foreshadowing if an employee dropped it down the toilet.
I think most would be willing to grant me that games like Mario Galaxy and Mario 64 essentially have no story, and it's clear that although the ideal goal should probably be a good story, no story seems easily to trump a bad one. Back in the day, games like Super Turrican and Ninja Gaiden and Castlevania and Ecco the Dolphin and Zelda felt super epic because their lack of a fleshed-out narrative, and their simpler graphics, forced and invited us to fill in the gaps with our own imaginations. Another World exploited that simplicity and subtlety to create one of the most narratively rich and compelling games I've ever played. As graphics improved, and as it became easier to incorporate story into games with things like spoken dialogue and better cutscenes, gaming worlds began to feel less epic and expansive, and the stories started to sound dumber and dumber as they began to be told more explicitly and completely. We finally saw our beloved franchises recreated in glorious technicolor and quietly said to ourselves "is that it?"
I personally have no idea what the plot for Super Turrican was, but I do not wish to go and find out. It cannot possibly measure up to the fabulous mythology I build for myself as a six-year-old boy, spurred on by the captivating music and 16-bit graphics.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Various Ideologies Analyzed in terms of Objectivism
Objectivism: A is A
Agnosticism: A is impossible to determine
Liberalism: A is whatever
Conservatism: A should only be A
Communism: A is ours
Despotism: A is mine
Anarchism: Screw A
Capitalism: A is for sale
Agrarianism: A is 2A
Dualism: A is A and a
Idealism: A is A
Subjectivism: A is A to me
Darwinism: A was B
Absurdism: A is B
Postmodernism: B is A
Surrealism: A is sandwich
Nihilism: There is no A
Rastafarianism: A mon!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Science Fiction/Double Feature
With the introduction of "Less-price-gougey Tuesdays" at the local cineplex, I got a chance to see both Inception and Predators one after another, and I'll try to give my thoughts on them without giving away too much.
I can't get very specific with Inception without getting spoilery, so I'll keep my critique vague. All in all, I thought it was awesome, but I do think it ran a bit long. The concept behind the film, of invading and navigating other peoples' dreams, amply warrants an in-depth treatment, yet as cool as the premise is, I didn't feel that it was explored to its fullest potential, and at two-and-a-half hours the screenplay dragged in places and at times even felt repetitive. I have the feeling that this was somewhat intentional to drive home the dreamlike aesthetic that the film does effectively convey, but I also feel that an already impressive film would have been made stronger had a few more minutes been cut, and I would likely be inclined to re-watch it more frequently. As it stands, Inception is still better and more original than the vast majority of films released, and probably the closest thing to a big screen adaption of Psychonauts we can hope for.
With its themes of what is really real, and of plugging into other realities, comparisons with The Matrix are inevitable. I wouldn't say that Inception is in any way ripping off The Matrix, but I also feel that The Matrix succeeded in a few areas where Inception fell short, particularly in terms of its action sequences. With the exception of a fantastically trippy setpiece in a hotel hallways, Inception's action falls drastically short of it's potential. This is not to say that the action is poorly shot or choreographed, but that because we are working in the realm of dreams, where conceivably anything could happen, a series of gunfights and car chases with generic goons just feels like a bit of a cop-out. Where The Matrix wowed us with its funky wire-fu and novel bullet-time effects, Inception sort of goes out with a whimper.
To be fair, Inception is meant more as an "ideas" film than an action film, and in that regard it holds up a bit better. Whereas the ideas behind The Matrix don't hold together all that well under closer scrutiny (such as the machines not having any apparent way of drawing new energy into the system they have constructed), Inception has a little more depth and ambiguity to pick at. That's not to say that the film is devoid of gaps in logic (there were a couple points I didn't get, but I won't pass judgment until I have a second viewing), but there are plenty of things that the films leaves you to turn over in your mind. But again, because so much could have been done with the concept, the result ends up feeling a tad disappointing. In particular, I would have liked to see more of the universal aspects of dreaming covered in some way, like when you're trying to run away from something and suddenly it feels like you're moving through molasses, or when your teeth don't seem to have been quite put in properly. I realize that the film is expressly trying to make us question what is and isn't real, but I can't shake the feeling that opportunities were missed.
A common complaint I've heard, of movies in general, is that the "dream-within-a-dream" is purely an invention of Hollywood and that this never happens to anyone. I can attest firsthand that this does happen in real life, and that it as trippy as balls. You wake up and say something like "what a peculiar dream that was. I'd best return to reality with a nice bowl of cornflakes. Then maybe some goldfish polo. I do hope the Queen has a spare dachshund." Later you awake in a cold sweat with the feel of scales and victory still on your palms.
Or maybe that's just me. I'm just gonna move on to Predators now.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Predators is the first film to feature the titular character, since the 1987 original, that wasn't awful. To be fair, I never saw the sequel to Aliens vs Predator, and I remember somewhat enjoying the first AVP film, probably out of some perverse fondness for the games, but I think I wouldn't be remiss in saying that both franchises went significantly downhill when they tried adding numbers or subtitles to their names. Just adding an "s" seems empirically to work out better. For the next installment, I suggest Predators'.
This is a film that I think would greatly benefit from a lack of foreknowledge. If you were somehow able to go into this with no idea what to expect and no knowledge of the original, or even just no idea that this was the movie you were going to see, I think the film would generate a respectable degree of tension and excitement. As it is, it just sort of feels like an homage, like it's just going through the motions (♪walking through the part♫), with little by way of surprises (and a painfully obvious Chekhov's Neurotoxin).
Unfortunately, the Predators are the weakest part of the movie. There's none of the unfamiliar menace they exuded in the original, and not even any of the cheesy badassery from AVP. After all these years, we finally get a Predator on Predator fight, and it looks exactly like what it is: two guys in rubber suits wrestling. I often argue that less is more, but sometimes it's just less. The Predators also seems considerably easier to kill in this installment; I guess they adhere to the law of inverse ninjutsu.
It's weird to see Adrian Brody take up the role once filled by Arnold "Aaugh" Schwarzenegger, but I would say that the cast is probably the strongest part of the film. The personalities are more diverse than the original, and I even like Topher Grace's weirdly-out-of-place doctor character. It was pretty funny to see Danny Trejo show up at the beginning when the previous trailer had him being a badass in Machete, only for him to be pretty much the first to die (that's not a spoiler, he's ethnic). When they're all just confusedly creeping about the jungle, it feels like a good episode of Lost. It's just a shame that the Predators are less menacing than the smoke monster.
I can't get very specific with Inception without getting spoilery, so I'll keep my critique vague. All in all, I thought it was awesome, but I do think it ran a bit long. The concept behind the film, of invading and navigating other peoples' dreams, amply warrants an in-depth treatment, yet as cool as the premise is, I didn't feel that it was explored to its fullest potential, and at two-and-a-half hours the screenplay dragged in places and at times even felt repetitive. I have the feeling that this was somewhat intentional to drive home the dreamlike aesthetic that the film does effectively convey, but I also feel that an already impressive film would have been made stronger had a few more minutes been cut, and I would likely be inclined to re-watch it more frequently. As it stands, Inception is still better and more original than the vast majority of films released, and probably the closest thing to a big screen adaption of Psychonauts we can hope for.
With its themes of what is really real, and of plugging into other realities, comparisons with The Matrix are inevitable. I wouldn't say that Inception is in any way ripping off The Matrix, but I also feel that The Matrix succeeded in a few areas where Inception fell short, particularly in terms of its action sequences. With the exception of a fantastically trippy setpiece in a hotel hallways, Inception's action falls drastically short of it's potential. This is not to say that the action is poorly shot or choreographed, but that because we are working in the realm of dreams, where conceivably anything could happen, a series of gunfights and car chases with generic goons just feels like a bit of a cop-out. Where The Matrix wowed us with its funky wire-fu and novel bullet-time effects, Inception sort of goes out with a whimper.
To be fair, Inception is meant more as an "ideas" film than an action film, and in that regard it holds up a bit better. Whereas the ideas behind The Matrix don't hold together all that well under closer scrutiny (such as the machines not having any apparent way of drawing new energy into the system they have constructed), Inception has a little more depth and ambiguity to pick at. That's not to say that the film is devoid of gaps in logic (there were a couple points I didn't get, but I won't pass judgment until I have a second viewing), but there are plenty of things that the films leaves you to turn over in your mind. But again, because so much could have been done with the concept, the result ends up feeling a tad disappointing. In particular, I would have liked to see more of the universal aspects of dreaming covered in some way, like when you're trying to run away from something and suddenly it feels like you're moving through molasses, or when your teeth don't seem to have been quite put in properly. I realize that the film is expressly trying to make us question what is and isn't real, but I can't shake the feeling that opportunities were missed.
A common complaint I've heard, of movies in general, is that the "dream-within-a-dream" is purely an invention of Hollywood and that this never happens to anyone. I can attest firsthand that this does happen in real life, and that it as trippy as balls. You wake up and say something like "what a peculiar dream that was. I'd best return to reality with a nice bowl of cornflakes. Then maybe some goldfish polo. I do hope the Queen has a spare dachshund." Later you awake in a cold sweat with the feel of scales and victory still on your palms.
Or maybe that's just me. I'm just gonna move on to Predators now.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Predators is the first film to feature the titular character, since the 1987 original, that wasn't awful. To be fair, I never saw the sequel to Aliens vs Predator, and I remember somewhat enjoying the first AVP film, probably out of some perverse fondness for the games, but I think I wouldn't be remiss in saying that both franchises went significantly downhill when they tried adding numbers or subtitles to their names. Just adding an "s" seems empirically to work out better. For the next installment, I suggest Predators'.
This is a film that I think would greatly benefit from a lack of foreknowledge. If you were somehow able to go into this with no idea what to expect and no knowledge of the original, or even just no idea that this was the movie you were going to see, I think the film would generate a respectable degree of tension and excitement. As it is, it just sort of feels like an homage, like it's just going through the motions (♪walking through the part♫), with little by way of surprises (and a painfully obvious Chekhov's Neurotoxin).
Unfortunately, the Predators are the weakest part of the movie. There's none of the unfamiliar menace they exuded in the original, and not even any of the cheesy badassery from AVP. After all these years, we finally get a Predator on Predator fight, and it looks exactly like what it is: two guys in rubber suits wrestling. I often argue that less is more, but sometimes it's just less. The Predators also seems considerably easier to kill in this installment; I guess they adhere to the law of inverse ninjutsu.
It's weird to see Adrian Brody take up the role once filled by Arnold "Aaugh" Schwarzenegger, but I would say that the cast is probably the strongest part of the film. The personalities are more diverse than the original, and I even like Topher Grace's weirdly-out-of-place doctor character. It was pretty funny to see Danny Trejo show up at the beginning when the previous trailer had him being a badass in Machete, only for him to be pretty much the first to die (that's not a spoiler, he's ethnic). When they're all just confusedly creeping about the jungle, it feels like a good episode of Lost. It's just a shame that the Predators are less menacing than the smoke monster.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Battlestar Galactica Boardgame Reviews
I just so happen to have in my possession both the Battlestar Galactica boardgame released in 2008, and the Battlestar Galactica boardgame released in 1978. To aid the prospective consumer, I have drafted a comparison of the two games highlighting some of their features and discrepancies.
In the 2008 version, humanity is on the brink of annihilation. Impeded only by a handful of brave Viper pilots, swarms of Cylon Raiders continually threaten to wipe out what remains of the fleet. Heavy Raiders bring Centurions onto Galactica that march inexorably towards the ship's vital systems, and the fearsome Basestars ceaselessly pump out reinforcements as their guns pummel Galactica unless silenced with a nuclear explosion. All the while, internal politics exacerbated by hidden Cylon agents threatens to tear the fleet apart from within as the humans struggle desperately to hold it together long enough to reach Kobol, the signpost to Earth.
In the 1978 version, there's a single defenseless and inanimate Cylon Raider that gets dragged around a lot. If you drag it into your corner, you win! All the other Viper pilots are trying to stop you for some reason by blasting you to pieces. Perhaps all the pilots are very drunk.
In the 2008 version, you can play as William Adama, Starbuck, or perhaps the enigmatic Gaius Baltar, any one of whom might turn out to be a Cylon agent secretly working to destroy the fleet.
In the 1978 version, you can play as blue.
The 2008 version uses a simple d8 to resolve ship combat (among other things), but the heart of the game's conflict is in the skill check system where players contribute cards to a face-down pile to deal with various crises. In each check some colors of cards will be helpful while others are harmful, and the cards are shuffled before they are revealed so it is unclear who has aided the humans and who has sabotaged them. The Cylon players will need to be subtle and choose their moments if they are to successfully destroy the humans' chances of survival without arousing too much suspicion.
The 1978 version has arguably one of the most ridiculous combat mechanic ever conceived. By playing a "laser torpedoes" card, you get to spin the spinner. The number result (from 1 to 6) tells you how many further times you get to spin the spinner. Each of these times, you check which of four colors the spinner is pointing to, and all the enemy Vipers in that quarter of the board get shot. By playing one laser torpedoes card, you could realistically shoot all, none or some of your opponents. Who knows? At least the mechanic is entertaining, in a putting stuff up your nose kind of way.
I would recommend the 2008 version to anyone who doesn't mind a somewhat longer and more complex game. The only real gripe I have with the game is that it can go upwards of two hours which keeps it from hitting the table as often as it would otherwise, but I still have a great time every time it comes out. Extra recommendation if you're a fan of the show, or enjoy an excuse to lie to peoples' faces.
I would recommend the 1978 if you have a sense of humor and would like to compare just how far boardgames have come in 30 years. Extra recommendation if you're a fan of Plan 9 From Outer Space, or anything else that sucks in a brilliant way.
In conclusion, the series finale was somewhat disappointing.
In the 2008 version, humanity is on the brink of annihilation. Impeded only by a handful of brave Viper pilots, swarms of Cylon Raiders continually threaten to wipe out what remains of the fleet. Heavy Raiders bring Centurions onto Galactica that march inexorably towards the ship's vital systems, and the fearsome Basestars ceaselessly pump out reinforcements as their guns pummel Galactica unless silenced with a nuclear explosion. All the while, internal politics exacerbated by hidden Cylon agents threatens to tear the fleet apart from within as the humans struggle desperately to hold it together long enough to reach Kobol, the signpost to Earth.
In the 1978 version, there's a single defenseless and inanimate Cylon Raider that gets dragged around a lot. If you drag it into your corner, you win! All the other Viper pilots are trying to stop you for some reason by blasting you to pieces. Perhaps all the pilots are very drunk.
In the 2008 version, you can play as William Adama, Starbuck, or perhaps the enigmatic Gaius Baltar, any one of whom might turn out to be a Cylon agent secretly working to destroy the fleet.
In the 1978 version, you can play as blue.
The 2008 version uses a simple d8 to resolve ship combat (among other things), but the heart of the game's conflict is in the skill check system where players contribute cards to a face-down pile to deal with various crises. In each check some colors of cards will be helpful while others are harmful, and the cards are shuffled before they are revealed so it is unclear who has aided the humans and who has sabotaged them. The Cylon players will need to be subtle and choose their moments if they are to successfully destroy the humans' chances of survival without arousing too much suspicion.
The 1978 version has arguably one of the most ridiculous combat mechanic ever conceived. By playing a "laser torpedoes" card, you get to spin the spinner. The number result (from 1 to 6) tells you how many further times you get to spin the spinner. Each of these times, you check which of four colors the spinner is pointing to, and all the enemy Vipers in that quarter of the board get shot. By playing one laser torpedoes card, you could realistically shoot all, none or some of your opponents. Who knows? At least the mechanic is entertaining, in a putting stuff up your nose kind of way.
I would recommend the 2008 version to anyone who doesn't mind a somewhat longer and more complex game. The only real gripe I have with the game is that it can go upwards of two hours which keeps it from hitting the table as often as it would otherwise, but I still have a great time every time it comes out. Extra recommendation if you're a fan of the show, or enjoy an excuse to lie to peoples' faces.
I would recommend the 1978 if you have a sense of humor and would like to compare just how far boardgames have come in 30 years. Extra recommendation if you're a fan of Plan 9 From Outer Space, or anything else that sucks in a brilliant way.
In conclusion, the series finale was somewhat disappointing.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Michael Bay's The Dark Knight - by Michael Bay
Did you know that an early script for The Dark Knight was submitted by Michael Bay, but this version was rejected on account of it being terrible ... and made up.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Blog Entry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)