Showing posts with label clans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clans. Show all posts

22 February 2020

The Appeal of Board Games

Two men sitting at a table playing a game called Indian Summer, in which the players arrange tiles of different shapes on their player boards trying to cover the maximum area with these tiles.

Not too long ago, I published an article in which I referenced an ex-girlfriend who once told me that I think too much. Specifically, it was in the context of a comparison of casinos to board game cafes, and the differences between board games and gambling. I was reminded of this by two events that recently happened: I attended a friend's party, and a different friend sent me a link to an article about how board games can reduce cognitive decline in old age.

The article does not mention the reason why board games are so beneficial to mental fortitude; it quotes the author of a scientific study as saying 'it is not just general intellectual and social activity, it seems; it is something in this group of games that has this small but detectable association with better cognitive ageing.' Which implies that they don't claim to know why board games improve cognitive function in the elderly.

Sure, I'm no scientist, but I have a pretty good idea what it is about board games that make them so beneficial. Two factors: social interaction and mental engagement.

13 October 2018

How Different Must It Be to Be a Different Game?

As you may have noticed, I have written in the past about the differences between the games Fae and Clans. I recently visited the page for Fae on Board Game Geek, and I noticed a forum discussion about why the game got a separate page from Clans. The short version is this: the admins at BGG originally felt that theme was irrelevant in determining what constitutes a separate game, but after outcry from fans (in large part because searching the database for games of a particular theme doesn't produce the desired results), they created a 'reimplements' function that links games with identical mechanics but differing themes.

This apparently resulted from the reworking of a game called Penguin, in which you stack coloured penguins into a pyramid, into a game called Game of Thrones: Westeros Intrigue, in which you play cards representing characters from one of four of the noble houses from that fictional setting into a pyramid arrangement. Mechanically, these are the same game. Although the construction and appearance of these games are markedly different, the rules governing what you do with them are identical.

As such, BGG gave them both the same listing. If you went to the page on BGG for GoT:WI, you'd see photos of both games jumbled together in the Images section, and a listing for 'Alternate Names' that included Penguin. But if you did a search for 'Antarctic Theme,' you'd get GoT:WI in the results, due to it being linked with Penguin.

14 July 2018

Clans Vs Fae - Comparing an Original and a Reimplementation

The boxes for Clans (artwork showing some prehistoric people on a hill looking down into a valley with several huts in various colours) and Fae (artwork showing a cloaked figure with a primitive staff holding his arm up towards a faerie creature).

Many years ago, I saw a game called Clans being sold in a game store. I read some reviews online, and thought it looked like a good investment, so I bought it. I played it, and I loved it. You can see what I thought of it in my review.

A couple of months ago, I noticed that there was a listing on Board Game Geek for a reimplementation of this game called Fae. I was apprehensive, yet excited. Clans had been out of print for some time, so I was pleased to see that it would be available again, although I was concerned that they had complety changed the theme.

I finally got my hands on a copy of it. So today, I'm going to compare the original game, Clans, to its reimplementation, Fae.

25 April 2015

Board Game Review: Clans

I normally try to follow a pattern of two-weeks-of-random-topics-then-a-board-game-review, but I'm going to change it up a little bit this week and next; I'm going to do two board game reviews in a row.

This week, I'm going to review Clans. Next week, I'm going to review Asphodel. This is a game that a very good friend of mine has created, and last night, I got to playtest it for the first time. He gave me a protoype copy for myself, and I'm going to take this to the board game club I attend on Tuesdays to get other people to playtest it as well. After I've had a few good playtest sessions with it, I will write a review here.

But I want to wait until I've had a few chances to play through it before I do that, so I'm going to stick to my normal schedule for this week. That means that I'm going to review one of my favourite board games (and honestly, I can't believe I haven't reviewed it here before): Clans.

First, the numbers:
Strategy and Randomness are rated from 0 to 6. A 0 means the rated aspect plays no part in determining the game's outcome; and a 6 means that it is the only factor that determines the game's outcome. Complexity is also rated from 0 to 6; a 0 means that it's so simple a six-year-old can play it, a 3 means any adult should have no trouble playing, and a 6 means that you'll need to refer to the rulebook frequently. Humour can be rated as 'None,' meaning the game is not meant to be funny, or it may have one or more of the following: Derivative (meaning the humour is based on an outside source, such as a game based on a comedy film), Implicit (meaning that the game's components are funny, such as humourous card text), or Inherent (meaning that the actions the players take are funny). Attractiveness has nine possible ratings. Ideal: the game is beautiful and makes game play easier. Pretty: The design is beautiful and neither eases nor impedes game play. Nice: The design is beautiful but makes game play harder than necessary. Useful: The design is neither beautiful nor ugly, but eases gameplay. Average: The design is neither beautiful nor ugly, and neither eases nor impedes gameplay. Useless: The design is neither beautiful nor ugly, but makes gameplay harder than it needs to be. Utilitarian: The design is ugly, but eases gameplay. Ugly: The design is ugly, and neither eases nor impedes gameplay. Worthless: The design is ugly, andmakes gameplay harder than it needs to be. Average Length of Game Play describes how long an average game will probably last, give or take.
Strategy: 5
Randomness: 1
Complexity: 2
Humour: None
Attractiveness: Useful
Expected Length of Gameplay: 30 - 45 minutes