So, two player board games
I like chess.
I always did, it's a game that forces people to think and seeing as my winrate against people when I was small was way above average, it made sense for me to like it.
I then grew into disliking it because people would take literal minutes between rounds and I'd get bored.
There is still beauty to it, but at a certain point, my enjoyment of the game is running out.
Now enter two player board games. Some of them are truly great. Amazing even. But they do end up in a chess situation.
Let me explain a little.
There are two factors of games that go into this:
Some board games in a two player mode are like that (and some even in more players but the multitude of players and their interactions change this by a big factor).
For example, when I recently tried to solo play the game Evo, I noticed this was happening. The two player board is perfectly mirrored. Both players get almost equal chances and all the randomness boils down to a roll of a dice. When it rolls, you know it will end up in one of three states so you can calculate your best chances of survival and victory and go with those. It becomes less of a game of beating your opponent and more a game of math.
And this is my main problem with it. If I wanted to play chess, I would play chess. No (or well very few of them) game is going to make the chess formula better than chess. And when I want to play a board game, I don't want to play chess. it's in a completely different realm.
So my advice would be: if you are making a board game featuring two player mode, don't make it perfectly symmetric. Force the players to choose wildly different strategies, ideally with similar chances of success, but do not force them into a standoff of chess-like moves. They are not there to play chess. If they were, they'd be playing it.
I always did, it's a game that forces people to think and seeing as my winrate against people when I was small was way above average, it made sense for me to like it.
I then grew into disliking it because people would take literal minutes between rounds and I'd get bored.
There is still beauty to it, but at a certain point, my enjoyment of the game is running out.
Now enter two player board games. Some of them are truly great. Amazing even. But they do end up in a chess situation.
Let me explain a little.
There are two factors of games that go into this:
- Information - how much information about the state of the game do individual players have
- Randomness - how much the state of the game can change between rounds based on a random 'whim' and how much you can mitigate that affecting you.
Some board games in a two player mode are like that (and some even in more players but the multitude of players and their interactions change this by a big factor).
For example, when I recently tried to solo play the game Evo, I noticed this was happening. The two player board is perfectly mirrored. Both players get almost equal chances and all the randomness boils down to a roll of a dice. When it rolls, you know it will end up in one of three states so you can calculate your best chances of survival and victory and go with those. It becomes less of a game of beating your opponent and more a game of math.
And this is my main problem with it. If I wanted to play chess, I would play chess. No (or well very few of them) game is going to make the chess formula better than chess. And when I want to play a board game, I don't want to play chess. it's in a completely different realm.
So my advice would be: if you are making a board game featuring two player mode, don't make it perfectly symmetric. Force the players to choose wildly different strategies, ideally with similar chances of success, but do not force them into a standoff of chess-like moves. They are not there to play chess. If they were, they'd be playing it.
Comments
Post a Comment