Will this blog be updating regularly again?

Yehuda

I completely agree that the use of humor is used in computer games far far too infrequently. I mean, there’s Worms….some adventure games…..and….um…….

The meta-commentary in the cards is definitely fun. This is not too dissimilar to the “messing with the player” content in the Gamecube’s “Eternal Darkness,” which was a main reason that game was so amazing.

Ben brought an interesting issue that this was essentially a “competitive party” - which is pretty rare. You definitely have PvP situations across groups, but we couldn’t think of an example of being in a party with people who tried to keep you from succeeding (or allying with you).

I was talking with Brian M. some more and I was just worried that since we are looking at games (board) and comparing to games (digital) wont it seem kind of redundant. Of course they share mechanics and of course some game designers have been influenced by them. But overall if this piece is made just to inform those game designers that do not know the current state of the board game world then it would be enough to write the paper.

But I think with some good examples that it can be said that board games do have mechanics that digital games have not used, or incapable of making, yet.

And I think it would be interesting to look into the whole tangible part of board games compared to digital games. I assume there is already some research done on that for mixed reality or tactile gameplay.

1) Randomness: you have a random deck players are drawing from each turn.

2) Information: you are trying to map opponent actions to an opponent’s hand. For example, if the player puts down a red investor card, you may assume that the player has enough red cards to sum up to >=8 or so, depending on your estimation of the player’s experience and playstyle. This can also lead to potential bluffing, but bluffs rarely pan out (as opposed to poker, where a bluff can knock out an opponent).

3) Resources: Players have to balance: a) which cards stay in their hand (as Ben points out) and which is played each turn, b) which colors to play (e.g. starting off with a red 10 would make me very likely to try to play red), and c) WHEN to play cards that will definitely be played (similar to a, I know).

A random draw from a fixed set of resources is common in board games (e.g. Scrabble or Ra). I would contend that an increase in randomness renders a game less strategic. What interests me about Lost Cities is where it fits along that spectrum of being able to play a good strategy or being pray to too much randomness.

I’m not a great player, so I won’t pretend to know what the “right” strategy is. However, I am fairly certain that a good strategy involves having:
a) a fairly accurate model of the player’s hand as time progresses
b) a good understanding of the probabilities of future card draws for each player given what is on the table, in their hand, and the model of the opponent’s hand, and
c) an understanding of how many turns are left and how to maximize their score, given a and b.

How does this translate into computer games? It’s a fairly abstract game - as Joe pointed out, this can be (and was actually adapted from) a traditional card game. I can see this being implemented in a “fixed resource RTS,” with some specific features. For instance, there could be a race to move through a tech tree with only one player earning the right to a given technology. If a player misses it, they would have to try to earn the next tech in line or work on another branch in the tree.

This wouldn’t bring in the aspects of randomness or information though….which may be tough. Examining poker and trying to relate it to a game is difficult work - though exactly the kind of exercise this blog is trying to accomplish. You could consider a random distribution of upgrades or technologies as part of the tech tree process; working on a technology involves both you earning it as well as being randomly assigned the ability to work on it (or given an advance in it). Nothing like this has really been explored in an RTS…it would be interesting to test out exactly how this would work to be fun. Given all else that is going on, it may simply complicate things too much.

I agree with Ben’s strategy, but I have a few strategical insights to add:

- Investment cards (multipliers placed at the onset of an expedition) are worth their weight in gold. If you are certain (certainty is hard to come by however) that you will reach 20 pts. and beyond with your expedition, an investment is the easiest way to increase your points. Waiting for an investment card to show up is very necessary when you posess the 10, 9 or even 8 of any color. I would even suggest waiting for a second or third investment card if you posess two or three of the higher cards. Focusing on one or two expeditions with multiple investment cards (while forgoing other expeditions) is a lucrative strategy.

- Beginning expeditions while not being absolutely sure that you will be able to reach 20 points may not be a good idea. This will clutter your mind and cause you to make unnecessary moves. The “timer” of this game (the amount of cards left) is something that you should always be aware of, and just like golf, every turn is important. You do not want to end up with an expedition that adds up to 20 (equalling zero) and then think about the 10 turns that you wasted making that meaningless endeavor possible.

- Do not let the time run out with assets still in your hand. This goes along with being aware of the “timer” of the game. You must always be aware of how many cards remain in the unused pile. Near the end of play, when you still have several cards in your hand, you should count how many cards are left in the pile. If there will not be enough cards left for you to play all of your important cards (8s, 9s, 10s left in your hand), then you must strategically begin picking meaningless cards from the discard piles in order to lengthen the game.

The strategic level of play involved in Lost Cities warrents it continuous enjoyable play, but other than the possible fixed resource correlation to RTS gameplay I do not see many other mechanics mappable to computer games. I also love the description of the game……”Travel to uncharted territory!!!”……”Explore the globe!!!”……”Invest your time and resources to uncover limitless fortune!!!” Right…..we could just as easily play Lost Cities with a Hoyle deck.