Reply: Kingdom Builder:: Reviews:: Re: Why I dislike Kingdom Builder

by Laurentiu

GrWr wrote:

You are the one that said that the game was like "a bunch of mediocre ones," in your review. And now you're saying that it's basically the same in any setup.

A bunch of mediocre games are not necessarily a bunch of vastly different mediocre games.

GrWr wrote:

I do not think that the game plays "about the same," I think that there are a basic set of skills and strategies that are applicable in all setups.

What I meant by "playing about the same" is that doing almost any kind of "formation" development (along a line, on many lines, big cluster, many small clusters, connecting locations, etc) requires the same tactics anyway. Some of the special actions may make some objectives easier or not, but in the end, that's all I can say that is positive about their addition.

GrWr wrote:

I don't see how you've made the point that the game is not deep.

Because I didn't even try to make that point.

I don't really care whether the game is deep - I only care if all the variety of its elements is actually making it deeper or is just "fluff".

Or put otherwise: if you add an element to a game and it doesn't make it much different, then why do you add it? This is derived directly from that Economy of Means principle.

To be clear, I don't think the game is deep either, but this aspect is not important for my argument that this is a bad design.

GrWr wrote:

The variety forces a player to adapt to variation in circumstances while playing the same game, where a simpler ruleset with a static setup would make the game repetetive, and perhaps solvable.

That variation doesn't make the game less solvable. If you can solve one instance, you can solve two hundred thousand instances. The deck of terrain cards is perhaps the biggest hurdle into devising a winning strategy, as it may always benefit one user of that strategy more than another.

People like to say that luck doesn't matter because the more skilled player will win more. But if both players have the same skill, which one do you think will win more? The luckiest, of course.

GrWr wrote:

This game is utilizing a different mental capacity than a more static game does, but that doesn't make it a bad design.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

GrWr wrote:

This game, like most eurogames, has a significant level of abstraction. Even the most thematic of rulesets can create theme-breaking moments. The odds are that you are correct, the horizontal line was chosen for simplicity's sake.

Abstract themes should be broken for a good reason and I just don't see a good one here. Also think about how this horizontal preference makes Discoverers inconsistent with the Paddock special action, which acknowledges diagonal lines.

The interesting thing is that despite the fact that the designer chose a hex board, they still seemed to think of a square one in terms of Builder cards - that's how I explain the presence of Knights as a kind of vertical counterpart of Discoverers.

Which makes me wonder - did they restrict Discoverers horizontally, just to enable the addition of Knights as a separate role, because developing diagonally would overlap pretty well with the Knights objective? And in this case, was the goal to have more simple scoring rules instead of a single one?

GrWr wrote:

I'm deeply skeptical that whether a rule is arbitrary can be objectively reasoned in any circumstance.

There are three directions of lines through every hex. When you state a preference for one of them without any reason, how is that not arbitrary? And then when in another rule you acknowledge the other two directions, how is that not inconsistent? And if these are not objective observations, then what is?

GrWr wrote:

laurentiu wrote:

There is no elegance in the way this game is put together. These are subjective statements you may say, but the elements I based them on are objective issues: overkill combinations, non-intuitive rules.

These are subjective statements, period. Those are not objective issues.

Actually, in user interface design, elegance is seen as a result of the intuitiveness of elements and of simplicity. If you use non-intuitive or complex interactions, they will get in the way of users operating your product. And in games, they would get in the way of users playing your game. Some game designers clearly understand this, while others apparently don't.

Non-intuitiveness and complexity is a barrier to understanding and adopting. That is an objective statement. If you don't believe me, look into the research done by psychologists to figure out how our brain works. Look into user interface design. There is a ton of information available on this subject.

GrWr wrote:

"Elegant" is the exact word that I would use to describe Kingdom Builders design. It is a lean design, with simple play and deep strategy. But I can't quantify what I just said, because it is my opinion, so I don't try to dress it up as an undeniable fact.

How can you call a design lean when it has so many scoring rules and actions? A lean design is that of Go. The Gigamic games are lean designs. Kingdom Builder is not lean. That is an objective statement.

Just because the elements are simple, it doesn't mean that their sum is lean.

GrWr wrote:

I will try and say thia more precisely so that you focus on the message and not my choice of language: saying that people's posts are nonsensical and a waste of yours and their time is a terrific example of the condescension that you have brought to the table with those that disagree with you.

Doesn't nonsense deserve condescension? If you want to treat nonsense as equal to your opinion, that is your choice, but I treat nonsense as nonsense, because that is what it is.

GrWr wrote:

And the above mentioned statements of your own opinion as logically-proven facts are what gives you the aire of superiority.

That's because many of them are indeed facts. If my arguments are not convincing, ask for more, or challenge mine with more arguments, but don't expect me to be faced with nonsense and take it as an equally valid position as mine. As some guy in a movie I've seen recently was saying: "one thing is one thing and another thing is another thing".

GrWr wrote:

I used the word unquestioned because I felt like a lot of your arguments were presented as if they were above scrutiny and beyond reproach.

They are certainly not above scrutiny. I expect scrutiny. They might be reproachable too, but that would require scrutiny first.

GrWr wrote:

You are the one arguing that the rules are unnecessarily complicated and that a better game could be made by simplifying the rules. When asked how you propose to create that game, you question the purpose of that exercise. You didn't answer my question.

I don't think I said a better game could be made by simplifying the rules. I said that you could have the same game with less rules without losing anything essential in terms of strategy or tactics. I also said that you could simplify the rules and maybe get a much better game by adding others.

So with that in mind, the answer to your question was simple: Take any specific instance of KB. What would you lose exactly if that was all this game was about?

And then turn that around and ask yourself: when you play a single game of KB, is that experience by definition sub-optimal because you're missing something important? Or otherwise put: is the KB design inherently sub-optimal? (Note: I use inherent when I mean it and I don't use it when I don't)

GrWr wrote:

No one needs to set up their parameters of evaluation to have a conversation or debate about boardgame design.

No one should, but that requires some common understanding of design principles. Not everyone has that.

GrWr wrote:

We will never agree on the parameters, and a great deal of what makes a design successful or not is subjective.

Well, now you're changing subjects. I am not talking about successful designs. I am talking about good designs.

And if you meant to say good designs, then no - what makes a good design is not a subjective aspect.

GrWr wrote:

There's too much "feel" involved to dry the discussion out until it is a Logic 101 debate.

That is because a lot of people don't explore their feelings to understand how they are generated. There is a lot of very exciting research that is being done in Psychology to understand how our brain operates. Our feelings are often wrong and incorrect. They are just "opinions" that the brain generates and that in most cases are incorrect and make us fail because we don't subject them to rational analysis.