Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
gentlegiantglass wrote: I think the problem with this game, much like Apples to Apples, is the LIMIT of creativity. This game disallows someone from being as creative as they want to be. You are forced to create some phrase that must relate to your picture but not overtly so. How is this at all interesting?
I would say that trying to find that balance between "too clear and obvious" and "too obscure and non-obvious" is exactly what makes Dixit interesting! Describing the art very creatively in the sense of overtly clear would be a much less interesting game (although it might be a fine creative writing activity, for example).
FWIW, I dislike Apples to Apples but like Dixit. For me they are significantly different. In Apples to Apples you're at the arbitrary mercy of just one person each round to decide whether you played a good card or not. But in Dixit there is the group "voting" which makes the assessment of the played cards' appropriateness/quality more "objective" in some (loose) sense. And in practice, my purely personal experience is that Apples to Apples seems to devolve into pure random silliness (like the moderator deciding a "dead cat" is more beautiful than the Mona Lisa or a sunset or whatever), whereas Dixit tends to create more genuinely interesting descriptions and quasi-poetic thought-provoking associations. That is probably partly a function of the very cards themselves - a lot of the Apples to Apples cards are inherently silly, and the Apples to Apples art style is more light/cartoony/silly, whereas Dixit's art seems to successfully put people into a more thoughtful interesting state of mind.
-
Ben Draper
United States
Castro Valley
California
-
You might be interested in trying out some of the variants (not sure if they're in the original rules or if I found them elsewhere), in which your clues are limited to a certain category. For example, all clues must be "titles of books" OR "cities in America" OR "Simpsons quotes". Whatever floats your group's creative boat. This forces players out of the "inside joke zone" and into a more creative realm, where they must figure out how to give a good clue given the limitations.
-
Freelance Police
United States
Palo Alto
California
-
tathta wrote: And it definitely promotes the use of obscure references and can make people feel excluded when they don't "get it."
I call this the "couples game". It plagues a good number of popular games, including Pictionary. (The anecdote I heard was two close friends. The drawer drew an "S" shape. The guesser guessed, "Seal". She was correct.) I've also seen it in What Were You Thinking (True story. We had several men and one woman, and the question was, "Ginger or Mary Ann". Guess which sex chose which answer and won.), and Linq.
The good news is that I've only seen this tactic in party games. As for whether or not party games are "games", I've noticed that each round of most party games is *exactly* the same as the previous one. Totally different from most Eurogames, where the board or other part of the game changes and evolves as the game plays. A "winner" of a party game is no more than a timer. You can easily play a party game *without scoring points* so long as you have *some* way to end it before the game wears out its welcome.
Maybe that's the criteria of a game, that the scores reflect the changing state of the game itself. Whatever.
-
-
gentlegiantglass wrote: I don't understand the hype behind this game. I love the pictures. I could arrange them all on a poster and hang it on the wall. The problem with the game doesn't lie in the art, but the game itself. Everything you mentioned I agree with, but that isn't the problem for me. I think the problem with this game, much like Apples to Apples, is the LIMIT of creativity. This game disallows someone from being as creative as they want to be. You are forced to create some phrase that must relate to your picture but not overtly so. How is this at all interesting? I actually like party games, and I was excited to try this one. Unfortunately the hampering of the creativity and the "game" itself made me never want to play it again. Here are some games where I think creativity is better cultivated, although the "game" still might not be up to par:
Loaded Questions
Once Upon a Time
Eat Poop You Cat
Say Anything
At least dixit is really relaxing and a pleasure to look at. Apples to Apples might be the worst thing (I hesitate to call it a game) that I have ever played.
I agree. I think original Balderdash (just obscure words, not categories, etc) is one of the best party games going around for these reasons. Unless you are playing with people who read the dictionary most words are blank slates that people can try anything on.
It's even better if you house rule it a bit. Playing with a 'funniest definition gets a bonus point' rule can make it even more hilarious.
And you can still game all these types of things if you really want to. You just need a different skill-set. You have to work out people personalities, interests, writing style, etc and can cater your creativity to take advantage.
-
-
BennyD wrote: You might be interested in trying out some of the variants (not sure if they're in the original rules or if I found them elsewhere), in which your clues are limited to a certain category. For example, all clues must be "titles of books" OR "cities in America" OR "Simpsons quotes". Whatever floats your group's creative boat. This forces players out of the "inside joke zone" and into a more creative realm, where they must figure out how to give a good clue given the limitations.
Well we did try to do this on few occasions, restricting the clue to a movie/series/song title (or even a verse or a quote).
It works rather good as long as no member of a group gets completely paralyzed by this restriction (which may happen sometimes). But it's definitely something worth trying out, especially if the games became a little stagnant.
P.S. Just for kicks, 1GG for the first person to put here an image of the card with the "Truman Show" clue... 
-
Miguel
France
Caen
(from Valencia, Spain)
-
-
-
Nice one! But only 0.25GG for you, since it's from Dixit 2...
-
-
I mostly agree with the opening post, and would go further to suggest it's a one-pony trick that won't work twice in many gamer groups. Which is quite expensive. Quoting myself from the comment page:
Quote: While I foresaw its shortcomings when watching initial reviews, I decided nontheless to give Dixit a try after it stomped prestigious awards one after another. And while this could be the greatest party game ever, it unfortunately isn't more intelligent than the limits of its players.
The scoring system encourages you to have more than 0 person but less than all people (preferably only 1) finding the card that matches your verbal clue. Leading to the very feared private jokes, or "that-movie-only-you-and-I-saw": sure the target is going to get it, but everybody else will be bored as hell. Then in retaliation will they censor clues that only one specific person might get, then after outcries from people not sharing your culture, allow only clues you suppose everybody is able to understand, then moan every time your subjective definition of "widely known" doesn't fit the one another player has in mind.
I'd be ok with playing Dixit once or twice per year with very casual gamers who'd get the most of it. But I sold my copy and am satistied with my decision.
-
-
baba44713 wrote: Just for kicks, 1GG for the first person to put here an image of the card with the "Truman Show" clue...
Cannot be unseen.
(Our clue was : "Mococoa.")
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
Nicolas Weiss wrote: Leading to the very feared private jokes, or "that-movie-only-you-and-I-saw"
It's worth mentioning that this "private joke" gambit doesn't work if you are playing it with you don't know well. I have played Dixit fairly often in such circumstances, e.g. most recently at a new year's gathering of Esperanto speakers.
If you find the "private joke" gambit to be a problem, then it's worth trying Dixit in such situations where you can play with people you don't know well and thus can't make private jokes.
-
Miguel
France
Caen
(from Valencia, Spain)
-
baba44713 wrote: Nice one! But only 0.25GG for you, since it's from Dixit 2... 
PS: BTW, I have mixed my three decks since the day I got them and have lost track of each card's origin. I like that for each game, even going once through the deck, there are many cards that won't show up!
-
|
|
