Kevin Maroney
United States
Yonkers
New York
-
blindspot wrote: What is it about yet another review of this game that brings out the haters?
I was rather wondering that myself. I can understand hating the game--there are a lot of games that other people like that I really, really don't. But I don't spend time watching games I hate so that if a positive review shows up I can rush to say how it stupid hately hate I do my anti-prehhhhhsuss. And I don't see that happening on other games' review forums.
-
Brian M
United States
Grand Ledge
Michigan
Tasteless Brute
-
womzilla wrote: I was rather wondering that myself. I can understand hating the game--there are a lot of games that other people like that I really, really don't. But I don't spend time watching games I hate so that if a positive review shows up I can rush to say how it stupid hately hate I do my anti-prehhhhhsuss. And I don't see that happening on other games' review forums.
In all fairness:
1) This review has >15 thumbs, which usually pushes it into "I'll check that review out, even though I don't like the game" territory if they see it on the main page.
2) As mentioned above, once the review hits a certain number of thumbs, people begin to think to themselves. "Oh no! This positive review is going to trick people to buy that horrible game! I'd better go save them"
3) I've seen similar behavior with games like Race for the Galaxy ("the icons are so convoluted!!!"), Android ("unbalanced and broken!!!") or any game where "the theme is teh pasted on!!1!1" Certain people just HAVE to make sure the dead horse receives its beating one more time.
4) I appreciate dissenting opinions. I'm not obligated to agree with them, but there are times when I can make a helpful comment to someone who passed on the game or didn't like it and they ended up liking it.
-
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
-
womzilla wrote: blindspot wrote: What is it about yet another review of this game that brings out the haters? I was rather wondering that myself. I can understand hating the game--there are a lot of games that other people like that I really, really don't. But I don't spend time watching games I hate so that if a positive review shows up I can rush to say how it stupid hately hate I do my anti-prehhhhhsuss. And I don't see that happening on other games' review forums.
You needn't "spend time watching games you hate" to see reviews for them pop up on your front page. If the only people who commented were the ones who gush favorably, these forums would be useless for researching games. Personally, I find remarks about why somebody does not like a game far more useful than the "haters" routine that so often follows. What's wrong with discussing games as adults, and hearing comments pro and con?
-
Kevin Maroney
United States
Yonkers
New York
-
Sphere wrote: You needn't "spend time watching games you hate" to see reviews for them pop up on your front page.
Ah--since I almost never look at the front page of BGG, that hadn't occurred to me.
Sphere wrote: Personally, I find remarks about why somebody does not like a game far more useful than the "haters" routine that so often follows. What's wrong with discussing games as adults, and hearing comments pro and con?
I just want to emphasize that don't consider "comments pro and con" to be a problem, in any way shape or form, just the random hating. So I'm with you on that.
-
I am glad that Johnny Jaws is my friend.
United States
Enumclaw
Washington
I know who I am. I'm the ant playin' the ant, disguised as another ant!
-
blindspot wrote: What is it about yet another review of this game that brings out the haters?
Anyway, spot on review. Props for telling people NOT to play it. I'd sure hate for one of them to ruin your fun.
Hey, I re-read the comments posted here and I did not see any that were obnoxious ("hater" that is an exaggerated fad word to me, which seems to be used mostly by .... well...whiners, not necessarily you).
I did make a comment about the game, in a jestful way. The review was well written and descriptive of why he enjoys it. No problem there at all.
Here is why I am a "hater" of this storybook game. Its more of a story than a game, and a fiddly one at that. My group refused to play a third time. I thought it was just ok, it didn't excite me as say...Defenders of the Realm.
BTW...The game board art of Arabian and Defenders seems similar, weird huh?
-
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
Pennsylvania
-
slate43 wrote:
BTW...The game board art of Arabian and Defenders seems similar, weird huh?
Mr. Universal Head may be upset to hear that.
-
Bill
United States
Sayville
New York
-
I bought Arabian Nights thinking it was a thematically immersive game and knowing that it was less strategic than many other choices. I have enjoyed a number of games of that sort (Betrayal at the House on the Hill comes to mind). I was not happy to learn that there is almost NO strategy at all and that I would be randomly bouncing from encounter to encounter with no rhyme or reason to it. I've got to agree with the haters on this one and say that there just isn't a game here.
-
Eric Flood
United States
Sunnyvale
California
-
latindog wrote: I bought Arabian Nights thinking it was a thematically immersive game and knowing that it was less strategic than many other choices. I have enjoyed a number of games of that sort (Betrayal at the House on the Hill comes to mind). I was not happy to learn that there is almost NO strategy at all and that I would be randomly bouncing from encounter to encounter with no rhyme or reason to it. I've got to agree with the haters on this one and say that there just isn't a game here.
Indeed, it is not a game; accordingly, it makes very little pretension of actually being a game. This is why I love it.
-
Chris Palmarozzi
United States
Austin
Texas
-
Why isn't this a game? You are competing against other players and/or the board with a structured set of rules. Winning isn't interesting and there are decisions and the decisions are fun, but not interesting since the results cannot be predicted. Still, it's a game because because there are at least goals to try to achieve.
I don't see a difference between this and Arkham Horror, especially in terms of defining a game. Both games are enjoyable because of the experience and not because of winning/losing. Both games are incredibly random. To really enjoy Tales you need to enjoy delivering and experiencing narratives. I would never play this game with over 4 people and really 2-3 is preferred because in my experience only 2 people have interesting roles in a given turn.
I would argue that Tales is also similar to Cosmic Encounter (though different enough I could see how some would define one as a game and not the other, unlike Arkham Horror). There are only a couple interesting, strategic decisions you make in a game of Cosmic Encounter (versus none in Tales) but the game creates an amusing experience. I actually don't like Cosmic Encounter because if I want a strategy game there are tons better options, and if I want a strong narrative there a few better options. Tales doesn't walk that line. There is no semblance of strategy because all mechanics in the game are there to provide an experience.
Adding strategic decisions would actually make this game less appealing.
-
Mark Thomason
United States
Washington
-
Lovely review. I received Dixit for Christmas and exchanged a second copy of a game I received to get Tales... haven't gotten to play either yet, but am totally stoked to do so... even more so after reading this review.
As to the 'hating' you'll see that in pretty much any popular game that has features that appeal to certain personalities while disappointing others.
I've seen the hating in some of my favorites like Battlestar Galactica, Android, and Shadows Over Camelot, and in some that are quality games that I enjoy but aren't huge for me, like Agricola or Race for the Galaxy. I've also seen it in big successes that I don't care for at all like Power Grid and Dominion. Pretty much every type of game has it's lovers and it's haters, and I think the more a game really focuses on a particular 'style' of play, the more passionate those feelings will be.
Agricola gets hit hard from those who like a more casual game; like Android I'm sure Tales gets hit hard by those who want more tactics and less theme.
Personally, I'm glad there's such a huge variety of tastes out there, because it creates a wonderful market for all these different games, and I get to play all kinds of different wonderful games with different groups of friends, depending on personal tastes. And since mine are varied, it works out well for me.
-
-
Most of what can be said about this game being a matter of taste has been said, so allow me to gently shift the topic.
Any who have read the original Tales of the Arabian Nights (I recommend the fairly recent translation by Hussein Haddawy) know that the narrative of the source material is intricate. Stories appear within stories, the narrative jumps almost at random between characters, and surreal twists plague the characters all the time. In that respect, Tales of the Arabian Nights works really well to evoke the narrative spirit of the source texts. But, as one might have deduced by now, the source material is not to everyone's tastes.
-
John Kantor
United States
St. Petersburg
Florida
-
It doesn't have anything to do with taste - there are just a lot of stupid people in this thread. If you don't understand story-telling games, you're pathetic and your life is pretty sad.
-
Rich Charters
United States
Chandler
Arizona
-
Nice review......extremely well written and captured the essence of the game.....especially when you discussed 'cheating'.....which I would call 'enhancing' the game.
Personally, when we play this game we try to make it even less of a traditional game than defined in the rules. We either play a set number of turns, or we play for a set number of total destiny+story points (rather than choosing a goal of destiny and story points). Also, at the end, we never go back to Baghdad to claim victory....we just say: "everyone ready to quit?" and leave it at that.
For those who say: "this isn't a game." I would say...it is not a traditional game where there is a winner and a loser (like chess), it is more a game for amusement (think tag or catch). Of course, you could make tag a game with a winner (say whoever was tagged less time wins) or catch a game with a winner (say whoever makes the least number of bad throws and least drops is the winner). However, there is no need to define a winner to enjoy the game. This is my thought toward Tales of the Arabian Nights. There are plenty of games that define winners/losers, it's refreshing to have one where you play just for the fun of it.
If you prefer analytics and control to imagination and spontaneity, this may not be the game for you.
-
|
|
