Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Dark Souls: The Board Game» Forums » Reviews

Subject: A comparative Review: Dark Souls vs. Zombicide rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Farydia Pseudo
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This game has had to endure a lot of harsh criticism and often outright spiteful opinions on these forums. I can't really agree with this, so I asked myself: What exactly is the problem?

I mean, for example, let's compare it to Zombicide: Black Plague. I'm only talking about gameplay and content here and in both cases only look at the base game.

Before I start, a few remarks: I played Zombicide: Black Plague 4 times so far and Dark Souls twice. So I do not claim to have dived into every nook and cranny of either game. The comparison is based on my impressions after a handful of games of both of them. Just in case, that it sometimes may sound otherwise in the comparison below, I quite enjoy Zombicide: Black Plague.

1) Play time: I've never played a game of ZBP below the 3 hour mark. So it's also a very long game. Dark Souls clocks in around 4 - 5 hours, although it is easy to save after the mini-boss encounter zombie
2) Enemy variability: There are only 4 types of enemies in ZBP, that are all basically the same. Dark Souls has 6 basic enemies, 4 mini-bosses and 2 bosses, that all feature their own behavioral patterns. sauron
3) Player characters: Zombicide has 6 heroes, Dark Souls has 4. zombie
4) The central aspect of both games is killing enemies, gaining loot and leveling up. So let's see:
4a) Luck factor in combat: ZBP is a dice chucker. There's not much in terms of luck mitigation, you might get equipment with more dice (= more chances of getting a success) or a better to hit chance, but there's very rarely any mitigation. It's also very binary: You hit = kill a zombie, if your weapon does enough damage. You miss = You don't kill a zombie. Dark Souls has only one die (the black one) with a blank side, better dice are just that: better. Weapon upgrades like the Titanite shard or weapons / upgrades that add status effects greatly help to establish a base damage. We often had encounters, where we didn't even have to roll a die to kill the grunt enemies, because it was all auto-kills. I like that! sauron
4b) Combat system: Due to the points above, Dark Souls is a lot less random overall than Zombicide, a lot more tactical with more meaningful decisions to make and I just find it a ton of fun. It also depends a lot more on teamwork than Zombicide. Example: I had a weapon with low damage output but with bleeding. So for the tougher enemies I would try to hit them first, give them bleed and my boyfriend would then come in with his Greatsword and finish them off. I had the better armour, so I wold usually take the aggro when going in. Both games work with open information, Dark Souls even more than Zombicide. There's ressource management and push-your-luck with the health / stamina bar. The battles themselves are highly engaging in Dark Souls, while Zombicide is basically just removing glorified cubes from the board to give some breathing space. It's ok and it works, but in my opinion nothing to write home about. sauron
4c) Luck factor in equipment: Rather high in both games, there's really not much difference between the two that I can discern.
4d) Level progression: This one goes to Zombicide, as you get a cool new ability on level up, while in Dark Souls you only level stats so you can equip better stuff. This is true to the video game, though. zombie
5) Variability: Yes, Zombicide has missions. Basically, you are still doing the same stuff in every scenario: Run about, kill zombies, try to find the objective marker, level up and gain loot to make it easier to kill zombies, run around... rinse, repeat. Dark Souls pits you against different encounters, a mini-boss and an end-boss. It does not gloss over the fact that your soul purpose is to fight, get better loot, try not to die too often. No winner here, they are both really straightforward and of course, to a certain degree, repetitive.
6) Miscellaneous: Zombicide has player elimination, which is kind of bad in such a long game. We always play without it and the dead character comes back with his starting equipment and at level 1. This is, to my knowledge, a house rule, though. In Dark Souls you always die together. In both games, there's practically no downtime that I have noticed. You always have to be present during other players' turns in both games to be effective as a group. No siginificant difference I can see.
7) Difficulty: Mind you, being difficult is not a quality in a game, per se. However, a good challenge makes or breaks a game. I find Zombicide a bit on the easy side, but still ok to be enjoyable. Dark Souls is in its board game form not as punishingly hard as the video game. We still had a tough time and although we managed to win, it was a close call which could have gone the other way, as well. I may have to say that I overlooked the rule, which says that you may reset your sparks after the mini-boss. That made it tougher than it should have been, probably. Having a weapon with bleed helped tremendously. I'm not giving this category to anyone, because, as I said, difficulty is not a value in itself. If I had to decide for my personal taste, I'd lean towards Dark Souls.

So, the end result is 3:3 and a handful of ties. With 2 or 3 players, I would definitely prefer to play Dark Souls right now, with higher player counts Zombicide. Overall, I think both games do what they set out to do very well and I enjoy both in their own way.

Now, what I could not find out with this short analysis: Why does it seem to be "universally accepted" on this forum, that Dark Souls is a bad game, while Zombicide receives a lot of praise? The people who do not recommend or enjoy Dark Souls: Would you recommend Zombicide: Black Plague?

Hope you find this interesting and can maybe enlighten me a bit, too. Keep playing meeple!
19 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B H
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
I'm interested in any responses to this but have nothing to add as I have yet to play Dark Souls, but I'm trying to decide if I want to buy it still....Even with all the negativity it still appeals to me and I'd like to see others opinions on compare and contrasts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jared Wilbur
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have never played Z:BP, but from what I've seen it doesn't look like my type of game. I actually have never played a dungeon crawl other than Dark Souls, so I have nothing to compare it to. The unique level up abilities sound like a nice touch in Zombicide though. It'd be nice if there were, perhaps, tiers in the heroic ability that could be unlocked to make it more powerful as different SL requirements are met.

Is it typical that base games for dungeon crawls have such a small variety of enemies and treasures and things? Or is that just the case with CMON as they typically have tons of KS exclusives and stretch goal expansions (like DS did)?

Good review, by the way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Guild
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The only dungeon crawls I've played are ZBP, Imperial Assault and Warhammer Quest Adventure Card Game. The latter two are from Fantasy Flight and feature many different enemies in the base games each with different health/movement points and different skills to attack with. Just take a look at the base game of Descent. There's so many different kinds of monsters. So I think the small variety of enemies in Zombicide is a CMON thing. You have to deal with the sheer quantity of them and their tactics being predicatble rather than trying to outsmart them. They are zombies after all.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claus Christiansen
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have played both games and I enjoy both; well, Dark Souls with house rules that is...

One major difference is that DS more or less requires you to grind. This is especially true for non-solo games. You have to be extremely lucky to be able to handle the (mini-)boss having cleared each tile only once. I consider this the single biggest design-flaw of DS. Handling an encounter once is fun, doing it two more times with better stats and gear, not so much!

Z:BP does not require grinding; in fact, grinding will likely flood you with zombies in no time whereby you risk extra mob activations, which can be deadly to any group of survivors.

Luckily DS can be house-ruled to minimize grinding.


Another difference is the spawn-mechanisms. In DS you reveal a tile and try to defeat the enemies. You know in advance the tile layout and at least the encounter difficulty, so there's not much surprise.

Z:BP with the spawn-cards is vastly more dynamic. Flipping the right (or wrong) spawn-card can change anything in an instant.

I guess DS can be viewed as requiring you to be tactical, whereas Z:BP requires you to be more adaptive.


As said, I enjoy both games, but I think DS by far is a more acquired taste than Z:BP.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Farydia Pseudo
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clausc wrote:

One major difference is that DS more or less requires you to grind. This is especially true for non-solo games. You have to be extremely lucky to be able to handle the (mini-)boss having cleared each tile only once. I consider this the single biggest design-flaw of DS. Handling an encounter once is fun, doing it two more times with better stats and gear, not so much!


Hm, this is something I don't get... Zombicide is essentially an endless grind, because every single combat "encounter" is identical. So the grind is in the very mechanic itself. You have to kill zombies to keep their number manageable. But the act of fighting is the same each and every time you do it and it is nothing but a grind. I don't see how you can like it in one game and not like it in the other. And in Dark Souls, the second time to go into and through an encounter is actually the best - because you are prepared, you have your tactics talked through in advance and bam, bam, bam, you've done it. And if you made a mistake, you're punished. That's immensely satisfying, imo. And the third time we didn't even spend 5 minutes / encounter and only did the ones we needed on the path to the fog gate - so that's about 15 minutes for the third run.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Farydia Pseudo
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joplick wrote:

Is it typical that base games for dungeon crawls have such a small variety of enemies and treasures and things? Or is that just the case with CMON as they typically have tons of KS exclusives and stretch goal expansions (like DS did)?


I would say it is rather typical for miniature based dungeon crawlers (Shadows of Brimstone has the same issue, I haven't played Descent in such a long time, as I don't own it, that I don't know how that fared in that respect). I'm guessing it has to do with the price point, maybe, probably?

joplick wrote:
Good review, by the way.


Thank you cool
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Liolio
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Farydia wrote:
clausc wrote:

One major difference is that DS more or less requires you to grind. This is especially true for non-solo games. You have to be extremely lucky to be able to handle the (mini-)boss having cleared each tile only once. I consider this the single biggest design-flaw of DS. Handling an encounter once is fun, doing it two more times with better stats and gear, not so much!


Hm, this is something I don't get... Zombicide is essentially an endless grind, because every single combat "encounter" is identical. So the grind is in the very mechanic itself. You have to kill zombies to keep their number manageable. But the act of fighting is the same each and every time you do it and it is nothing but a grind. I don't see how you can like it in one game and not like it in the other. And in Dark Souls, the second time to go into and through an encounter is actually the best - because you are prepared, you have your tactics talked through in advance and bam, bam, bam, you've done it. And if you made a mistake, you're punished. That's immensely satisfying, imo. And the third time we didn't even spend 5 minutes / encounter and only did the ones we needed on the path to the fog gate - so that's about 15 minutes for the third run.


Grinding isn't managing. Grinding is playing the game longer, in a boring way, to level up to the point where there is no challenge. If you don't do this in Dark Souls, you will lose.

I haven't played Zombicide, but I've played games with mechanics where not managing an increasing variable properly, you will eventually lose the game.. The lose condition increases in danger as the game continues.
The threat increases, whether you do anything or not, the tensions rise..

This is far and away something different from Dark Souls's 'difficulty isn't worked out, so you solve the difficulty by playing the game for enough hours that you've maxed out stats needed to win'. *snore*
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claus Christiansen
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Farydia wrote:

Hm, this is something I don't get... Zombicide is essentially an endless grind, because every single combat "encounter" is identical. So the grind is in the very mechanic itself. You have to kill zombies to keep their number manageable. But the act of fighting is the same each and every time you do it and it is nothing but a grind. I don't see how you can like it in one game and not like it in the other.

I'd argue that a complete Z:BP mission is a single evolving encounter. Also, in the start of a Z:BP mission you often do NOT want to kill too many zombies. So, I don't think DS and Z:BP are comparable at all in that respect - apples compared to attack helicopters...

Farydia wrote:

And in Dark Souls, the second time to go into and through an encounter is actually the best - because you are prepared, you have your tactics talked through in advance and bam, bam, bam, you've done it. And if you made a mistake, you're punished. That's immensely satisfying, imo. And the third time we didn't even spend 5 minutes / encounter and only did the ones we needed on the path to the fog gate - so that's about 15 minutes for the third run.

Well, if I have already figured out an encounter, then I see no point in repeating it. You like DS as it is intended to be played - I respect that. I, on the other hand, will probably never play DS non-solo as Steamforged designed it ever again; I WILL however play it again (and again) with house rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Melkata
msg tools
Nice review! i agree, both games have pluses and minuses. You forgot quality of minis though- ds are fantastic. I think the issue with ds is the game with the rules as written is pretty repetitive and grindy. I can see why people were turned off initially.

However, with some simple house rules it's actually pretty fun. Don't like doing the same encounters over and over? Then don't! You can just randomize each encounter. It's still pretty long, but I haven't found it to be repetitive. Now, whether it's worth it at retail for someone who is not a ds fan is another question. I do like that the pieces move around the board a lot more than descent or gloomhaven say, but I'm not sure someone who doesn't already like ds will be wowed by the game.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Parkes
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Farydia wrote:
This game has had to endure a lot of harsh criticism and often outright spiteful opinions on these forums.

Really? Quite a lot of people are disappointed in the final product but 'spiteful' is a weird choice of word. I think it's fair for people to be disgruntled and air their thoughts/feelings online, this wasn't a small investment after all.

Personally I've gone from 'please let Tom be wrong', to 'this is a bit lacking' to 'maybe I can experiment with house rules a bit' to 'I actually can't be bothered with this'. Ultimately a massive disappointment, of which no amount of comparison with Zombicide is going to convince me otherwise.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jared Wilbur
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's how it went for me too. If I'm going to spend time ironing out rules, I'd rather just create my own game instead of work on someone else's.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anders Pedersen
Denmark
Copenhagen N.
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
StarryVeck wrote:


Personally I've gone from 'please let Tom be wrong', to 'this is a bit lacking' to 'maybe I can experiment with house rules a bit' to 'I actually can't be bothered with this'. Ultimately a massive disappointment, of which no amount of comparison with Zombicide is going to convince me otherwise.


My feelings exactly.
I browse these forums on occation but do not expect to bring out the game again before the rest of the kickstarter material arrives.

As far as Zombicide goes, I do not see the point in comparing these two games - they are very different games.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Velox
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This game, while I did enjoy it to some degree, I did find severely lacking. Honestly, if I wasn't such a huge fan of the Souls video games, and because I spent really only $100 instead of the KS $200 for the game and the upcoming stretch goals, I probably would have been more harsh.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Parkes
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
StarryAqua wrote:
This game, while I did enjoy it to some degree, I did find severely lacking.

Yeah, same. And I can't see me getting it out again before the stretch goals arrive, which I'll be trying out of some sense of curious optimism, rather than because I really believe they'll significantly improve the game.


StarryAqua wrote:
Honestly, if I wasn't such a huge fan of the Souls video games, and because I spent really only $100 instead of the KS $200 for the game and the upcoming stretch goals, I probably would have been more harsh.

I'm hoping the game with the stretch goals will go for a decent price. I can't see me hanging onto it (even if, like you I am a massive Souls fan).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Olds
United States
OREM
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is my experience that people who use the term "dice chucker" have little understanding of dice mechanics.

The MORE dice you throw, the LESS random your results. However, to me neither game is hurt by the way it uses dice.



The real trouble is the game flow. Ideally, the tension and excitement of the game should go up as you play, and finish off awesome.


My experience with the two games is this- Dark Souls gets boring before it is finished, while Zombicide gets more exciting the farther you get into the game with escalating encounters until you finally finish it off.

In Dark Souls- the tension usually decreases over time. Early encounters and even the mini boss can be a lot of fun, but the second half gets plain boring, and you're ready for it to be over hours before the finish.

Also- your times seem a little off- I've definitely played full games of Zombicide in less than 3 hours, but the most experienced group will take 5+ hours to complete Dark Souls.


Dark Souls needs to be fixed in order to be great. There's some really good stuff in there, but it is seriously hurt by the bad.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Farydia Pseudo
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
odinsgrandson wrote:
It is my experience that people who use the term "dice chucker" have little understanding of dice mechanics.

The MORE dice you throw, the LESS random your results. However, to me neither game is hurt by the way it uses dice.


Um, nope. Every die roll is, per definition, a random generator. There are several ways possible to mitigate luck and rolling more dice is one way to increase the chance of a single success. The result is still random, though. You could even say it is more random, because when you're rolling 1 die you either kill 1 zombie or you don't (in case of Zombicide now). With 5 die you may kill any number of zombies between 0 and 5.

And a dice chucker in my book is a game where you roll a lot of dice to determine the outcome of certain events. Maybe that is not the definition of the BGG dictionary. In that case I apologize for confusing my audience .

odinsgrandson wrote:
The real trouble is the game flow. Ideally, the tension and excitement of the game should go up as you play, and finish off awesome.


My experience with the two games is this- Dark Souls gets boring before it is finished, while Zombicide gets more exciting the farther you get into the game with escalating encounters until you finally finish it off.

In Dark Souls- the tension usually decreases over time. Early encounters and even the mini boss can be a lot of fun, but the second half gets plain boring, and you're ready for it to be over hours before the finish.


I respect your opinion, it was just that I had a different experience. But I also see the possibility that this may be the case on repeated plays.

odinsgrandson wrote:

Also- your times seem a little off- I've definitely played full games of Zombicide in less than 3 hours, but the most experienced group will take 5+ hours to complete Dark Souls.


Dark Souls needs to be fixed in order to be great. There's some really good stuff in there, but it is seriously hurt by the bad.


Maybe we are just very slow Zombie slayers laugh. I agree with your last statement: I think, what is there is already a good game, not stellar. I just don't agree with the notion that the game as of now is totally abysmal.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Velox
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
StarryVeck wrote:
I'm hoping the game with the stretch goals will go for a decent price. I can't see me hanging onto it (even if, like you I am a massive Souls fan).


The only reason I got them cheap is because I sold my original KS copy for $230, then re-bought it again because I found a new copy for $75. My optimism wouldn't let go of hopeful potential. (Or because I may be stupid.)

Also, totally unrelated: nice to meet you, Starry. I'm Starry.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Parkes
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
StarryAqua wrote:
StarryVeck wrote:
I'm hoping the game with the stretch goals will go for a decent price. I can't see me hanging onto it (even if, like you I am a massive Souls fan).


The only reason I got them cheap is because I sold my original KS copy for $230, then re-bought it again because I found a new copy for $75. My optimism wouldn't let go of hopeful potential. (Or because I may be stupid.)

Also, totally unrelated: nice to meet you, Starry. I'm Starry.


My Dark Souls brother from another mother.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
amanwing
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DS is the first KS I ever sold. Even after painting all miniatures. And I do not look back.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Olds
United States
OREM
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Farydia wrote:
odinsgrandson wrote:
It is my experience that people who use the term "dice chucker" have little understanding of dice mechanics.

The MORE dice you throw, the LESS random your results. However, to me neither game is hurt by the way it uses dice.


Um, nope. Every die roll is, per definition, a random generator. There are several ways possible to mitigate luck and rolling more dice is one way to increase the chance of a single success. The result is still random, though. You could even say it is more random, because when you're rolling 1 die you either kill 1 zombie or you don't (in case of Zombicide now). With 5 die you may kill any number of zombies between 0 and 5.

And a dice chucker in my book is a game where you roll a lot of dice to determine the outcome of certain events. Maybe that is not the definition of the BGG dictionary. In that case I apologize for confusing my audience .




I get where you're coming from, but I'm at odds with the people on BGG who hate dice. I've encountered "dice chucker" as a derogatory term a LOT, but I feel that those using it haven't thought through their stance.



You have also not thought through your math- you are a little too tied to the game mechanics that they had here. If you roll five dice possibly killing zero to five zombies- how is that different from rolling a single die that kills between zero and five zombies? The answer is that the single die is more swingy- you're more likely to roll zero and five, while the five dice will give you a more average (and predictable) result.

You believe that the results are more random because rolling more dice will give you more possible results (1d6 gives you 6 results, 2d6 gives you 11, right?)

I believe that throwing more dice is less random because it gives you a greatly lessened standard variation of your results- thus making the results of a given roll a reliable and predictable.


Rolling a die gives you a single random result. Every number on the die has an equal chance of being rolled.

If you roll two dice and add them together, then you suddenly get a bell curve of results. 1d12 has the same 1/12 chance of hitting every number, but 2d6 will hit 7 one in 7 times, and 12 one in 36. Every die that you add in to this mix will give you a more stable curve= ie- more likely to hit near the center, less likely to hit the outliers (with 4d6, the max or min rolls are hit roughly once in 125 rolls).


So, a single die is "More Random" because it is less reliable. On one die, anything can happen with the same probability. Games that add dice together reward you for determining what your average results are and making that the ideal result for you (in a game like Undercity, each +1 is a big deal, and players manipulate that to their advantage).





This remains true when you aren't adding the dice together (although people haven't put the bell curves to it). If you roll four dice, the chances of landing all sixes or all ones is just as remote (1/125).


I used to play Warhammer Fantasy Battle, and at first I felt that had a little bit of trouble with "bad luck" in combat. Then, I started working out the averages for combats, and planned my strategies accordingly. In Warhammer, one unit attacking another is resolved by 20-30 rolls, so the mean or near mean results are practically guaranteed.

Conversely, this method wasn't as effective for GW's skirmish games- the same mechanics are used, but only one or two dice are usually rolled- making the game much more swingy.


Zero dice is still less random (unless you just use cards to simulate dice- they tend to work a lot like a single die roll). But once you start using random number generators, more dice doesn't make the game more random.




Both Dark Souls and Zombicide play with the randomness involved in about the same way. Both have weapons that give you a single all or nothing die and weapons that give you three lesser dice.

In Dark Souls, the swingy die is more likely to land you a maximum roll, but it is also more likely to completely whiff an attack as well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Farydia Pseudo
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think we're basically agreeing on a content level, but not on a language level.

Little clarification: A die roll is random. Full stop. That's the end of it. Two dice have different probabilities for a certain outcome (mind you, only if you add the results! Otherwise there is absolutely no difference between rolling one die several times or several dice once), but it's still random, because there is no way to predict the result. You also get a bell curve if you roll several Hit-or-Miss dice (e. ge. it is more likely to get at least a single success with two dice than with one etc.) The bell curve is just the distribution of likelihood of each result, it doesn't change the fact that the outcome is still random.

Now, all the games that I titulate as "dice chuckers" simply mean, that you have to know your probabilities for each outcome and have to manage these. "Managing the randomness" if you will, just as you described in your Warhammer examples. I like that, I do not mean dice chucker in any derogative or otherwise negative way. I don't hate dice, only dice hate me .

And I was talking strictly about the math of the two games involved, there is no adding up of results involved in either of these games, because every die stands for itself.

Long post short, I think our view on the use of dice in games is pretty similar, I was just irked by the statement "More dice are less random" because I rather think it should read "More dice give a different probability for a certain outcome." Oh, and just in case, because in written conversation, this is sometimes a bit hard to get across: I don't want to sound condescending or if I was giving a lecture, I just have this little OCD thing about mixing up "randomness" and "probability". Please don't mind me modest.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claudio Hornblower
Italy
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mmmh... re. bucket of dice, let's say we have a combat system where you need to roll a "6" on each die to hit. So 1-5 = miss, 6 = hit.

1D6 -> You have 5/6 (83%) chance to miss.
2D6 -> You have 25/36 (69%) chance to miss.
3D6 -> You have 125/216 (58%) chance to miss.
4D6 -> You have 625/1296 (48%) chance to miss.
5D6 -> You have 3125/7776 (40%) chance to miss...

So rolling 1D or 5D drops the chance (the CHANCE! battles are not Chess!) to miss by half, almost. Or raises the CHANCE to hit (at least once) from 17% to 60%, that's threefold (almost). And so on. That's the point of dice-bucketing. Play Warriors of God gents!


Now, re. Dark Souls. Look, I'm fine with artistic renderings. You can paint a perfect blue with a white stripe across, pretending to see "the splitting of the universe and power", call it - let's say... - Onement VI (which is cool) and sell it for - let's say... - 45 millions $.

Wow. Fine. That's your view and I could agree with it, or not, then hang loose.

But if you pick up a big IP, beloved by > 8 millions fine people all over the world, you take the spotlight pretending to shape that GREAT videogame in a boardgame format... Hey! I'd rather expect those elements. Not a generic horror/fighting (like Zombicide).

To be more specific, I'd really loved to see for instance...

1. a split/actions management, full of tension from the beginning to the end, like in Gunslinger, and/or

2. a diceless, ultra-dinamic, combat based on skill (and memory, and bluff) like in BattleCon, and/or

3. a world shaping exploration where you take decisions based on what you see like in The 7th Continent...

And so on. That was my idea of how a game like DS could be translated in a different medium. But by no means I'm a game designer so I was delighted to see real creators footing the bill.

Alas... I feel the bill is all on us! Dark Souls (bg) doesn't live up to my expectations (too high?).

Just the fact that the OP compares it to Zombicide (a generic, one-among-many-others game) tells a lot.

Dark Souls (bg) is just another of "those" games, with characters with special powers, dice to roll, loot to get. Ironic enough, Dark Souls (vg) is praised JUST BECAUSE IT IS NOT "another of those games". No boring moments. You're always on the brink. When I read people saying that in the bg format you reach the point that rolling dice is useless, ah!, I think we're done: grats you designers, worst idea ever then! Either you scale the dice results, or you don't use them at all! (Just my 2 cents as always).
And shall we start talking about the looting system?

That's why - I think - there are 68 (!) posts of Variants right now. That's why you may read on the comments people voting it rather good but yeah, with some homemade rules... because the game as it is...

Average rating dropped from 7.5 to 7.0 and counting; could it be that ALL the internet trolls are gathering here to say that this - oh how superb - boardgame is, really, bad for what it is (IP, price, expectations)... or maybe it's time to face the bitter truth?

TL;DR:
Zombicide is just a generic setting, harmless, a dice chunker to be taken lightly.
Dark Souls was going to be a very specific stomach-crunching, visceral, satisfying skill-based adventure in an eerie setting. Which is NOT (imho), right now at least (maybe future expansions will redeem it?)


Ah, side note in a post already too long. Cool miniatures. I don't think so. Excuse me, they're average at best (Giant Armor shield, Titanite weapon and back, O&S...).

Good gaming & peace meeple
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.