[Click for all books]
Armchair ArcadePromote Your Page Too
Here are my answers to the nine questions at the end of your article.
1. Favorite board games.... I haven't played these since high school, but probably Risk, Monopoly... and there was one called "Dark Tower" I enjoyed with my friends, although I can't for the life of me remember how it played. I don't know if "Star Fleet Battles" counts, but if so, that's #1 on the list. Sports (watching): Football, Boxing, pretty much any one-on-one sport (tennis, MMA, wrestling, ..... I'm starting to sound like one of your "zero sum jocks" now...) Sports (playing): Jiu-Jitsu, raquetball, bowling.
2. Probably that they are "zero sum," the very thing you are opposing in your article.
3. I can't even think of a game that doesn't have a clear "winner," although multiple-competitor sports (like racing) might not have a clear "loser," except the very last competitor (maybe). Anyhow, I suppose I can enjoy it, although I don't really follow sports like that (Nascar and such). If I can think of an example of such a game (or you give me one), it's likely that I would at least mildly enjoy it.
4. I guess I like interesting premises in board games ("Life," "Monopoly," "Clue," etc.) and also easy rules to follow. What I hate in board games is too many rules and too much scorekeeping by the player, slowing the game down. I suppose that's true of videogames for me; I like a fast progressive pace and don't like getting bogged down in too much minutiae. I also like to feel like there's some skill involved and not win or lose by random chance (a lot of gambling games are like this).
5. Sure, although I've never played a "Facebook/Zynga" game. But after reading your article, I'm open to experiencing a "non-zero-sum" game.... maybe focusing on "non-zero-sum" is a worthy pursuit!
6. I don't think so.... I think casual games are easy-to-play games with simple rules and controls. A lot of old-school arcade games (like Pac Man) are considered "casual" games today.
7. I don't think it compares, because usually you know the people you are playing in a real-life board game, while a "Facebook" game involves an unseen opponent, perhaps someone you don't know personally. The laughing, the camaraderie, the personal touch, the "hey, try some of this onion dip!" is all missing in and online game... it's actually more focused on the game itself than the real-life version! I think board games are often more a form of partying or social function, and "online" games are more like actual games, even if they're both the same game technically.
8. I never play classical board games, unless you count the "Shanghai/mahjong" variants as board games. But I will play card games. I don't like gambling, but I'll play some friendly poker with someone. And I was quite addicted to the videogame "Faerie Solitaire" a while back. And I'm trying to learn the videogame version of "Magic: The Gathering" via Steam, but not really understanding it (yet).
9. Yes. I was more of an action gamer in my youth, although there were definite exceptions. Then my tastes became "deeper," and I started getting into empire-building games (Civilization) and CRPG's. Now my tastes are much less action-heavy, preferring casual games and deeper CRPG's. I like to relax with a game now, and am not so concerned with beating it.
More information about formatting options
All editorial content © 2003 - 2013 Armchair Arcade, Inc., an Armchair Creative Services, L.L.C., property. All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. All trademarks and copyrights are retained by their respective owners. No content is to be removed or reused from the Armchair Arcade Website for commercial purposes without explicit permission from the principal Armchair Arcade staff, or the original trademark or copyright holders. Armchair Arcade, Inc., is not responsible for the content of any external sources or links. Further, endorsement of any external sources or links is neither implied nor suggested.