To pick up on what Scott is saying about your first game: he's right. I've seen this a lot. Even if your first game is completely awesome, there are so many pitfalls, especially on the business side, that you want to have a practice run or two before letting your A+ idea out of the bag. There's nothing wrong with continuing to develop this first game on the side, just don't make it the first thing you stamp your name on.
So many designers have their great first game ruined because of publisher and production stuff. It might be the greatest game ever but oh it got printed on shit components or you had a bad graphic design so now nobody will look at it. So many designers wish they had learned more about game design to turn their first game from an B into an A.
See my last post. I strongly disagree. Most people are just unwilling to sit and learn a serious game. No matter how you package and present it, learning a game takes awhile. Even if a person comes to their house and teaches them to play, it takes awhile. Most people in the world are not willing to sit still and pay attention for that span of time.
Even with a game that has little to no rules like Go, it's amazingly hard to get people to learn how to play.
That is something far more reasonable, I think. Those concerns eat at me more than anything about the game itself (unless it's a stupid concept, which no one of the 5 people I've shown the prelim rules set to have said).
From personal experience: simple games sell well and get your name out there. Leave the complex stuff for later.
Unless your name is Knizia. If that is your name you could pack four bags of dog shit in a box with dice and meeples and some low level publisher will suck your dick for the publishing rights.
Or if your name is Borg you can begin your career by claiming to have invented a game that originated in South America HUNDREDS of years before your birth and get publishing companies to pay you royalties for it.
See my last post. I strongly disagree. Most people are just unwilling to sit and learn a serious game. No matter how you package and present it, learning a game takes awhile. Even if a person comes to their house and teaches them to play, it takes awhile. Most people in the world are not willing to sit still and pay attention for that span of time.
Even with a game that has little to no rules like Go, it's amazingly hard to get people to learn how to play.
Instead of thinking about the rules learning part followed by the playing part. Instead think about the boring part followed by the fun part.
For most games learning the rules is the boring part and playing is the fun part. So it doesn't matter.
For a game like Go, playing is still boring until you have achieved some amount of mastery.
If it's your first board game design, then it is too complex. It might not be too complex to be good, it's too complex to be your first game. That's like your first time riding a bike is the Tour de France. Imagine if I told you I never programmed before, but my first program is going to be a new operating system. Start with some Hello World and some Tetris.
He made a similar but not quite as direct or well-put argument. Familiarity with the subject and knowledge of intent both weigh in on this.
I've been playing games my whole life. I was playing blackjack and poker at 4. My parents tried to teach me Candyland to play with my older sister but it literally was babies first table flip. Same thing with Monopoly. I was the asshole who'd sell someone all his property so I could go do something else.
This has to provide some level of insight as to how games work and definitely informs what I think would make a decent (note: I didn't say great. I know this is my first attempt, I don't expect greatness) game,
To use similar analogies to yours, I have been looking at code for years. I know fundamentals of programming but I've never actually done it. I suspect that your knowledge of games would permit you to make a decent game yourself, had you resources enough to commit yourself to the task.
No, it wouldn't. Playing is not the same as making. I've been listening to rock music my whole life, so I can definitely compose a hit rock song!
Even if you've spent 100,000,000 hours playing games you have 0 hours of practice at making games.
No, it wouldn't. Playing is not the same as making. I've been listening to rock music my whole life, so I can definitely compose a hit rock song!
Even if you've spent 100,000,000 hours playing games you have 0 hours of practice at making games.
I'm not saying it's a direct translation. Being around and absorbed in something will by nothing if not osmosis help you better understand that thing.
You say it yourself in your panels. "Transfer your power" I get your point. I'm not saying because I logged 100,000,000 hours playing games I'm going to come out the other end the next Knizia. I am saying it does put me somewhere in front of babies first attempt. It may be toddlers first attempt but it is meaningful.
Saying that playing lots of board goes has given you insight into game design is like claiming that playing lots of video games has given you insight into writing game software. No! What you have is some insight into what color paint and art style you want games to have.
Game design is serious business. While almost anyone can design a "play once" game to be a game designer you need to be able to design games that people will want to play multiple times.
Saying that playing lots of board goes has given you insight into game design is like claiming that playing lots of video games has given you insight into writing game software.
This is a facile analogy. There is a layer of technology between a video game and the player. Multiple layers, in fact. When I sit down and play FTL, I understand there is a layer of code between me and play of the game. Sitting down to play Power Grid or Carcassone? There is nothing but game bits and the rule set.
I can think about how tiles are balanced, about the bag pull mechanic, etc and conceptually think of something similar and be able to execute on it with random physical bits. With a video game, no amount of thinking will help me learn code and go about building a working prototype based on nothing but an idea.
*EDIT* I'm cooking lunch so I had to step away...
Game design is serious business. While almost anyone can design a "play once" game to be a game designer you need to be able to design games that people will want to play multiple times.
I also said earlier... " (unless it's a stupid concept, which no one of the 5 people I've shown the prelim rules set to have said). " This indirectly addresses that. As a gamer myself, I hate buying a game and walking away feeling it's a stupid game. As I slowly show it to people and take in feedback, I'm going to try and account for these kinds of things, so yes, I understand it's not about making a one and done game. For me, that's implied.
Let me put it to you this way. Obviously watching a lot of hockey won't allow you to learn enough to be a hockey player because you haven't learned the mechanical skills and muscle memory of skating and shooting.
But do you think watching a lot of hockey qualifies you to be a hockey coach? Do you think watching lots of football qualifies you to coach a football team and call the plays? No, no it does not. There are things you can't learn without actually coaching. You have to start by coaching little league or some other small time team. You can't just go from watching to the pros.
And such is the same with making a board game. You need to start making a little league game. If you try to make a full sized game as your first game, you will fail and fail hard. The fact that you disagree with this leads me to further predict you will always fail hard since your mentality is all wrong. You think Knizia started with big games? You think Minecraft is the first game that Notch made? Name one game designer who has succeeded by making a big game first. You won't find even one.
Let me put it to you this way. Obviously watching a lot of hockey won't allow you to learn enough to be a hockey player because you haven't learned the mechanical skills and muscle memory of skating and shooting.
Agreed. That's a physical activity you can only learn by doing.
But do you think watching a lot of hockey qualifies you to be a hockey coach? Do you think watching lots of football qualifies you to coach a football team and call the plays? No, no it does not. There are things you can't learn without actually coaching. You have to start by coaching little league or some other small time team. You can't just go from watching to the pros.
Also agreed. I would say, having actually watched a lot of football, that it would give me a decidedly better chance of succeeding than someone who has watched little or none. I'd still rather have a 0.1% chance over a 0.0% chance.
There is a reason that not every college coach is successful in the pros or that every heralded offensive/defensive coordinator will make a successful head coach, as well. There are intangibles and unforeseen happenings that occur in any endeavor.
And such is the same with making a board game. You need to start making a little league game. If you try to make a full sized game as your first game, you will fail and fail hard.
Is it really all about succeeding all the way? Just as much can be learned from failure. At least I'm *doing* rather than simply thinking about it anymore.
The fact that you disagree with this leads me to further predict you will always fail hard since your mentality is all wrong. You think Knizia started with big games? You think Minecraft is the first game that Notch made? Name one game designer who has succeeded by making a big game first. You won't find even one.
The only point of supposed contention here is actually unrelated to the fact that I'm making a game, how I'm going about , what my intentions as a first time designer are or anything like that.
You are of the opinion that because I have never sat down and attempted to make game before that I'm a complete novice (on which I agree) *and* that anything I may have experienced before that time has zero relevance on the matter. I happen to think it does. We cannot begin to argue the amount of influence if we can't get an agreement on even that basic, more root concept.
I may fail, Scott. In fact, I know it probably will fail. But I'll have done it, I'll have learned from it and I'll have better tools going forward should I choose to try again. That's what it's about for me. Naysay me all you want. It's not about you or your opinion. It's about me and doing what I think is fun in a game.
Will you have learned the correct lessons from your failure? If your first attempt at painting is to paint the Mona Lisa you will fail and likely have no clue why you failed in large part because you attempted something so difficult that you will not know enough to learn anything from your failure.
If you start with water colors and a bowl of fruit your reasons for failure will be far easier to understand and learn from.
Will you have learned the correct lessons from your failure? If your first attempt at painting is to paint the Mona Lisa you will fail and likely have no clue why you failed in large part because you attempted something so difficult that you will not know enough to learn anything from your failure.
If you start with water colors and a bowl of fruit your reasons for failure will be far easier to understand and learn from.
I may fail, Scott. In fact, I know it probably will fail. But I'll have done it, I'll have learned from it and I'll have better tools going forward should I choose to try again. That's what it's about for me. Naysay me all you want. It's not about you or your opinion. It's about me and doing what I think is fun in a game.
Even though you know you may fail, you think you will only fail to make a good game. You will also fail to learn anything about making games. Your game making skill will not advance.
If I have never played Street Fighter before, and I play against the world champion, I know that I will lose before I even press start. But I will also not increase my Street Fighter skill at all. I will be just as good after the match as I was before. In order to learn I need to play against someone of much less skill. Then I'll actually be able to maybe do a move or two.
In the same way you learn by failure, you learn with more failures. You need to fail fast and fail often. Make lots of small easy games and you will learn a lot from each and every one. Try to bit off more than you can chew, you will not only fail to eat, not improve your chewing skills, but also waste a lot of time. You could have made and failed at many small games and learned from all of them in the same amount of time you wasted making one game that taught you very little.
The first mistake any creative beginner is going to make is aiming too high on their first project, where their aspirations far exceed their current ability, leading it to never living up to their own standards. The vast majority of these people will never even finish that first project, but those who will eventually succeed in making stuff will learn from the experience and figure out where they went wrong on their own.
So basically, you can tell Dromaro that all day until you're blue in the face, but he isn't going to believe you until he tries it on his own
I'm sure I'll end up playing Roll for the Galaxy and Space Cadets at a convention or game night. The Cave seems mechanically similar to Infiltration. Tammany Hall is the only one I want to buy based only on the information in this article.
Anyone going to Unpub 3 this weekend? It is outside of Dover, Delaware for $5. I plan on going on Saturday all day, hoping to meet some people I know down there.
Anyone going to Unpub 3 this weekend? It is outside of Dover, Delaware for $5. I plan on going on Saturday all day, hoping to meet some people I know down there.
Were you there all day Saturday and I did not know? Was there. Played many games. Had a great time.
Anyone going to Unpub 3 this weekend? It is outside of Dover, Delaware for $5. I plan on going on Saturday all day, hoping to meet some people I know down there.
Were you there all day Saturday and I did not know? Was there. Played many games. Had a great time.
No shit, and yes I was there all day Saturday. I took 4 hours today writing a first impression on every game I played there, and next time I am getting a hotel room and staying for both days.
Hahah oh well. I could have sworn I've posted about UnPub once or twice on here. I went to UnPub 2 last year and met a bunch of great people so I decided to go back. I drove down straight from NYC on Friday and crashed at Darrel Louder's house, then stayed almost all of sat.
What did you play? I got to try VivaJava Dice, Wok Star, Belle of the Ball, Rolling For Amusement, Club Zen, Hostage Negotiator, and Rancheros.
Seriously, Hostage Negotiator has completely changed my opinion on solo board games. That game is so damn good, and it actually makes SENSE that it's just you against the deck of cards. I mean, you're a hostage negotiator. It's supposed to be isolating.
I got Intrigue, Knot Dice, Les Cartes Miserables, Pixel Lincoln 2, Princes of the Dragon Throne, Post Position, and Escape from Pirate Island. Post will be on Meeples and Bits at Noonish time where I give a first impression on every game. Next year should get a cheap ass motel and stay for both days.
Oh good news, MAGFest and Unpub might be happening next year .
Hey, I was just looking at some photos, and I saw this game we played at PAX East one year. I have not seen the game played or heard anyone talk about it since. I remember it being at least OK.
Jeremy loves it even though he always ends up losing because he is always teaching/recommending moves to new people to the game. It's basically screw over all your opponents, get your opponents to screw other people over, and try not to draw attention to yourself and build/place your pieces in a continuous line.
I find it more fun using manipulation tactics/recommendations for people in this game fun. We can bring it again to PAX East if you'd like.
As for new board games, I picked up Indigo by just looking at the box and reading the description on the back. I did check for a quick review on BGG, and knew it was right up my alley. Tile placement, path making, pretty colors. SOLD!
It's a simple, easy to learn/play, quick set up game to play. I didn't realize it was a Reiner Knizia game until I actually opened it up when I got home. Played one game and lost by one point to Jeremy. You basically have gems along the board that have different values. Each edge of the map has certain players' color tiles assigned to that section. Your goal is to draw a hex tile that has different pathways on it, place it on the map to where you move the gems to get off the map on various edges of the board that has your color on it to score
I think it would be more fun with more than 2 people.
Infinite City just didn't catch on. It probably did not have a huge print run, and doesn't look like it'll be getting a second one anytime soon. I really try not to judge games at face value, but I've had pretty poor luck with AEG-published games. Nightfall and Smash Up were fun, and Love Letter is a good quick card game, but almost everything I play from them feels underdeveloped, and the rulebooks are crap.
Speaking of PAX East, I was playing a lot of this game at the last PAX [Belfort], but I don't think we ever talked about it on the forums. I'm not sure exactly where I'd rank it, but it's definitely up near the top of my favorite worker placement games.
Comments
So many designers have their great first game ruined because of publisher and production stuff. It might be the greatest game ever but oh it got printed on shit components or you had a bad graphic design so now nobody will look at it. So many designers wish they had learned more about game design to turn their first game from an B into an A.
Unless your name is Knizia. If that is your name you could pack four bags of dog shit in a box with dice and meeples and some low level publisher will suck your dick for the publishing rights.
Or if your name is Borg you can begin your career by claiming to have invented a game that originated in South America HUNDREDS of years before your birth and get publishing companies to pay you royalties for it.
For most games learning the rules is the boring part and playing is the fun part. So it doesn't matter.
For a game like Go, playing is still boring until you have achieved some amount of mastery.
Even if you've spent 100,000,000 hours playing games you have 0 hours of practice at making games.
You say it yourself in your panels. "Transfer your power" I get your point. I'm not saying because I logged 100,000,000 hours playing games I'm going to come out the other end the next Knizia. I am saying it does put me somewhere in front of babies first attempt. It may be toddlers first attempt but it is meaningful.
If we disagree on that, we disagree on that.
Game design is serious business. While almost anyone can design a "play once" game to be a game designer you need to be able to design games that people will want to play multiple times.
I can think about how tiles are balanced, about the bag pull mechanic, etc and conceptually think of something similar and be able to execute on it with random physical bits. With a video game, no amount of thinking will help me learn code and go about building a working prototype based on nothing but an idea.
*EDIT* I'm cooking lunch so I had to step away...
I also said earlier... " (unless it's a stupid concept, which no one of the 5 people I've shown the prelim rules set to have said). " This indirectly addresses that. As a gamer myself, I hate buying a game and walking away feeling it's a stupid game. As I slowly show it to people and take in feedback, I'm going to try and account for these kinds of things, so yes, I understand it's not about making a one and done game. For me, that's implied.
But do you think watching a lot of hockey qualifies you to be a hockey coach? Do you think watching lots of football qualifies you to coach a football team and call the plays? No, no it does not. There are things you can't learn without actually coaching. You have to start by coaching little league or some other small time team. You can't just go from watching to the pros.
And such is the same with making a board game. You need to start making a little league game. If you try to make a full sized game as your first game, you will fail and fail hard. The fact that you disagree with this leads me to further predict you will always fail hard since your mentality is all wrong. You think Knizia started with big games? You think Minecraft is the first game that Notch made? Name one game designer who has succeeded by making a big game first. You won't find even one.
There is a reason that not every college coach is successful in the pros or that every heralded offensive/defensive coordinator will make a successful head coach, as well. There are intangibles and unforeseen happenings that occur in any endeavor.
Is it really all about succeeding all the way? Just as much can be learned from failure. At least I'm *doing* rather than simply thinking about it anymore. The only point of supposed contention here is actually unrelated to the fact that I'm making a game, how I'm going about , what my intentions as a first time designer are or anything like that.
You are of the opinion that because I have never sat down and attempted to make game before that I'm a complete novice (on which I agree) *and* that anything I may have experienced before that time has zero relevance on the matter. I happen to think it does. We cannot begin to argue the amount of influence if we can't get an agreement on even that basic, more root concept.
I may fail, Scott. In fact, I know it probably will fail. But I'll have done it, I'll have learned from it and I'll have better tools going forward should I choose to try again. That's what it's about for me. Naysay me all you want. It's not about you or your opinion. It's about me and doing what I think is fun in a game.
If you start with water colors and a bowl of fruit your reasons for failure will be far easier to understand and learn from.
If I have never played Street Fighter before, and I play against the world champion, I know that I will lose before I even press start. But I will also not increase my Street Fighter skill at all. I will be just as good after the match as I was before. In order to learn I need to play against someone of much less skill. Then I'll actually be able to maybe do a move or two.
In the same way you learn by failure, you learn with more failures. You need to fail fast and fail often. Make lots of small easy games and you will learn a lot from each and every one. Try to bit off more than you can chew, you will not only fail to eat, not improve your chewing skills, but also waste a lot of time. You could have made and failed at many small games and learned from all of them in the same amount of time you wasted making one game that taught you very little.
So basically, you can tell Dromaro that all day until you're blue in the face, but he isn't going to believe you until he tries it on his own
I'm sure I'll end up playing Roll for the Galaxy and Space Cadets at a convention or game night. The Cave seems mechanically similar to Infiltration. Tammany Hall is the only one I want to buy based only on the information in this article.
What did you play? I got to try VivaJava Dice, Wok Star, Belle of the Ball, Rolling For Amusement, Club Zen, Hostage Negotiator, and Rancheros.
Seriously, Hostage Negotiator has completely changed my opinion on solo board games. That game is so damn good, and it actually makes SENSE that it's just you against the deck of cards. I mean, you're a hostage negotiator. It's supposed to be isolating.
Oh good news, MAGFest and Unpub might be happening next year
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/46807/infinite-city
I find it more fun using manipulation tactics/recommendations for people in this game fun. We can bring it again to PAX East if you'd like.
As for new board games, I picked up Indigo by just looking at the box and reading the description on the back. I did check for a quick review on BGG, and knew it was right up my alley. Tile placement, path making, pretty colors. SOLD!
It's a simple, easy to learn/play, quick set up game to play. I didn't realize it was a Reiner Knizia game until I actually opened it up when I got home. Played one game and lost by one point to Jeremy. You basically have gems along the board that have different values. Each edge of the map has certain players' color tiles assigned to that section. Your goal is to draw a hex tile that has different pathways on it, place it on the map to where you move the gems to get off the map on various edges of the board that has your color on it to score
I think it would be more fun with more than 2 people.
Speaking of PAX East, I was playing a lot of this game at the last PAX [Belfort], but I don't think we ever talked about it on the forums. I'm not sure exactly where I'd rank it, but it's definitely up near the top of my favorite worker placement games.