Comments on: 7-in-1 Magnetic Family Game: Backgammon

By: W.Yutani

W.Yutani — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:04:50 +0000

Not sure it’s a straight steal but the SOL systen in Breath of fire V and a couple other Capcom games is pretty close. You can choose to sacrifice your current progress but keep your stats and items etc. as you get into trouble. You have to play through the same chunk of the game again, but hopefully a bit stronger. As it’s an rpg based more on survival and stamina, it does make it more intresting. Also through a couple of other game mechanics, the more you do this, the more of the game you see.

Incidently, I think I’m thought more about game design and mechanics from this series of non electronic reviews than any other computer games reviews I’ve read. (so erm congratulations and stuff)

By: Wisq

Wisq — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:45:48 +0000

@Helm: I suspect that’s the random element at play. With Chess and Go, you’ve got deterministic outcomes based purely on skill and contemplation.

Obviously, backgammon still involves skill, but more in terms of predicting outcomes and adjusting the stakes appropriately, even if it means recognising and giving up a slim hope of victory in order to avoid a crushing defeat — much like poker.

Of course, recent televised tournaments aside, I think poker has traditionally received essentially the same kind of treatment as you say backgammon has.

From my experience, the people I know who play Backgammon (relatively few) play single games in isolation as if it were chess. To me, that’s missing the point. It’s like playing a single hand of poker as if that were the entire game. Perhaps I would have been more interested in the game had I been taught the full scope, rather than just putting the long-term aside as “oh, that’s only if you’re playing for points”.

By: The Fanciest of Pants

The Fanciest of Pants — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:43:33 +0000

Great piece Keiron.

I’ve got fond, distant memories of backgammon. Some Greek friends-of-the-family taught me to play when I was 6, for some reason I remember it as a very mature and sophisticated experience.

It’s got a very soft-leather-armchair and cognac feel to it, god knows why.

By: Deadend

Deadend — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:40:04 +0000

EndWar.
It may be a fairly lame RTS game, but when you were losing, you had the option to fire a nuke to turn the tide, except if you shot yours, the other side could use theirs. It gave the loser a chance to up the stakes for that match as they were losing.

By: dhex

dhex — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:31:24 +0000

this was a great article. my favorite variation is acey deucey, where you go from strategy with a luck component to a strategic footrace with a huge luck component.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acey-deucey

By: Helm

Helm — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:44:08 +0000

Keiron, you’ll be delighted to know that in countries where Backgammon is very common – like in my native Greece – it is considered an extremely lowbrow game, played by do-nothing layabouts at sunny cafes nationwide while drinking ice coffee and shouting the worst obscenities to each other when they happen to roll worse than usual.

Of course all these people play extremely good Backgammon and they Would Destroy You Utterly if you were to challenge them and yes it requires a keen understanding of the gambling aspect and risk/reward to play properly (the person that isn’t good at it cannot see why he is worse than the one that is good at it and usually puts it to luck/unluck), but isn’t it interesting how it’s not at all the mark of a higher mind like playing Chess or Go is?

By: Zero

Zero — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:19:30 +0000

I always find that people I know who play backgammon simply refuse on face to use the doubling cube. I actually read Paul Magriel’s treatise, Backgammon, and if you’ve read that, or played a freaking game of backgammon the right way, you know that the game basically is nothing without the doubling cube. It’s like playing draw poker without chips.

It annoys me.

By: Pod

Pod — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:31:20 +0000

Die is a disgusting word. Dice is clearly the best word to describe a single dice. (see!). It’s a bit like sheep.

By: Rockeye

Rockeye — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:27:10 +0000

It’s not quite the same as the doubling die, but I’ve played beat ‘em ups before where extremely powerful ‘desperation’ moves can only be pulled off when you have very low health. The losing player is therefore given the tools to swing the fight rapidly back in their favour, but because the moves are hard to pull off (and the opportunities for practice are limitied) they risk a swift demise by trying to use them.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:49:53 +0000

I liked the chess analogy. To misquote Iain Banks, any game that can be played (in a strategic sense) ‘perfectly’ has to be flawed. The very best games incorporate a measure of luck, just as life does. Die-rolling – Dorian, referring to Games Workshop as a teacher does you no credit, dear boy – is an obvious example.

Backgammon’s a very simple mathematical puzzle. Personally, I find it incredibly addictive. If you have the time and amenable friends, I recommend an afternoon of round robin backgammon. 3 games each, winner takes all. And some beers, of course. Good way to spend a Saturday in the sun.

By: Lu-Tze

Lu-Tze — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:21:22 +0000

The only parallel I can see the the concept of doubling (and redoubling) in contract bridge. Obviously not a modern videogame example, but it does have the same rough effect.

In general the auction phase is reasonably unrivalled, you need a game that is designed to always be played more than once for it to sensibly occur. Videogames rarely seem to rely on the fact that you will always play more than the current game, largely because of the immature mentality of “well I can’t win now, screw it rage quit”.

Lost Cities is another example (which is a more modern game that got subsequently converted to an XBL version) that has the fact you play more than one game to make up a whole set. Whilst it has no direct doubling/redoubling mechanic, the fact that your score carries to the next game makes a hella lot of difference though. Which means that if people have a bad first game they immediately quit the match (ok, not universally true, but it’s reasonably common).

It reminds me of all the people you see in online poker who go all-in on the first hand everytime because they can only win from a position of starting with twice (or more usually 3 or 4 times) as many chips as everyone else. If they lose, they are out and just go join another starting game. If you measure their win rate, it’s probably about 1 in 5, but in terms of their ratio of time played whilst winning/time played whilst losing, then it pretty much inverts and they end up being the winner/leader for much longer periods than they are a loser (which really lasts just a few seconds).

By: Kieron Gillen

Kieron Gillen — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:35:05 +0000

Remo: Exactly!