By John Walker on November 24th, 2010 at 3:39 pm.

Telltale have released their all-star super-cheap poker game, Poker Night At The Inventory. Starring characters from a range of games, and including all their original voice actors, it’s a really fun idea. But is it also a fun game? I’ve been through an awful lot of its tournaments, and am ready to throw in my chips and tell you Wot I Think.
To communicate quite how weak Poker Night At The Inventory is, I’m afraid I’m going to have to occasionally use wanky poker language, which will annoy anyone who doesn’t care much about hold ‘em. But helpfully, Poker Night At The Inventory is also weak for anyone who doesn’t care much about hold ‘em. So for those who don’t know their hole cards from their double-gutshot straight draws, be assured that the fun of playing cards against Sam & Max’s Max, Homestar Runner’s Strong Bad, Team Fortress 2′s Red Heavy, and Penny Arcade’s Tycho, in a secret underground card game, lasts about as long as it takes for the dialogue to start repeating. About twenty minutes.

A lot of the lines are funny. Strong Bad and The Heavy frequently made me laugh the first time I heard their gags. Max is sadly poorly written for most of it, squawking rather than saying anything inventive, or making extremely laboured references to the Sam & Max episodes. And Tycho is just swearing in place of having anything witty to say. His character is an attempt at being sardonic, but mostly he seems to be appropriately criticising how un-fun the game is to play. Then swearing. (When he says “fuck this shit” it’s hard not to nod in agreement.)
But there are some good moments. The conversations between the characters can be surprising and funny, sometimes poking fun at the games they’re from, or the developers behind them. (Although I’ve not heard any reference to the failure of the Penny Arcade games, which is a tad elephantine.) But, of course, all this only counts for the first time you hear them. And they repeat very quickly. Often because there’s absolutely nothing in the game to tell it not to play the same conversation twice in a row. I am perhaps a little fed up of hearing Strong Bad and the Heavy discussing killing the King Of Town. You can turn down the amount of banter, but since it’s really the only thing the game’s got going for it, it seems self-defeating. It seems beyond insane that they didn’t have every actor record something like a hundred different ways for saying “fold”, “check”, “call” or “raise”. Each has so few that you hear them endlessly, quickly growing to loathe them.

Ultimately, as intriguing as it certainly is to have such iconic gaming characters all around one baize cloth, this is a poker game. When you’ve heard Max screech about chequer boards made of human bones for the fifth time, and listened to the Heavy and Strong Bad discuss boxing yet again, what you’re left with is the card game. And it’s beyond dreadful.
I just won a hand against the Heavy when he raised my all-in (um) with second-from-bottom pair, on a board covered in high cards. And this is on Difficult. They’ll bet absolutely any two cards, and will commit all their chips with any pair, no matter how weak.
Which makes it an awful lot like playing absolute beginners at poker. If you’re a reasonably experienced player, you’ll know the horror of a first-timer joining your game. Because, as strange as it seems, it makes the game so much harder to play, and equally to enjoy. So much of poker is based on playing the heads of the other players, rather than the cards in your hand, that there being someone who’s willing to hold onto a bottom pair of 2s on a board covered in paint cards (royals), seems so improbable you can’t take it into account. It becomes a lottery, and you may as well play any two cards yourself. (See pic below)

You can’t use any tactics. You can’t raise the other players off a weak hand, or intimidate them. They check-raise constantly, and almost always with nothing. The majority of times I’ve been beaten it’s because they’ve hit a 2-outer on the river, rather than because they’ve out-played me. It’s just pot luck, random, bingo, a waste of time. Bluffing is, therefore, rarely possible.
Switch it up to Difficult and things, oddly, get a little easier. Their behaviour is less completely insane in this mode, there’s ever-so slightly more pattern to it. But they’ll still bet nonsense, and hold onto a pair of 3s with a flop full of Aces and Kings. Here you can occasionally shake them off their hands, but despite playing in this mode for most of the time I’ve still been enormously infuriated by how dumb it is.

The betting is also borked. Say the blinds are at 100 and 200, regular pre-flop bets will be around the 3000 mark. Just completely bonkers over-bets as standard. Then perhaps on the turn, with a 4000 pot, to call it’s 600 and you raise it to 2400; another character will say raise but only put in 600 more. I’m quite certain this is completely against the rules of hold ‘em (I’m sure a re-raise has to be equal to or more than the previous raise, not the round’s big blind), alongside making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Frequently characters will chuck in an enormous raise, then fold at almost nothing after the next card. And there’s outlandishly stupid betting like putting in all but 200 of their chips, and then folding when re-raised for the final few. Or, as mentioned before, raising after the only other opponent is all in, proving the programming just has no clue what’s going on.
Further lack of an understanding of poker is shown in showdowns. If everyone involved is all in or called, so the cards are face up, it will continue to attempt to build suspense on the river, even after the turn card has ensured one player will definitely win. It makes the game seem so feeble, so ignorant of the game it’s trying to portray. I can’t imagine any other poker game that would be released without hand percentages displayed during showdowns, let alone one that doesn’t even understand 100% even if it’s hidden.

There’s bugs too. A lot. I’ve had the pleasure of the game only showing me one of my cards on two occasions (see above). It makes it a little more challenging to play when one of your cards is hidden from you. Max will frequently announce he’s “checking too” after no one else has checked. When conversations characters are having are interrupted by events, they’re supposed to say, “As I was saying…” and carry on. But more frequently the conversation vanishes, or they say that line then don’t carry on, or start madly repeating the same lines. Characters mock you for checking, immediately before or after checking themselves. Despite switching off the bleeping for swearing, randomly it will still get bleeped out. Right clicking to skip dialogue very often just makes them say the same line again. And frighteningly often it will just fail to display who’s on what blinds.
It gets even stupider. One of the decks you can unlock, the Homestar deck, is so idiotically designed that you literally can’t see what the card value is on the screen. It’s bewildering. Take a look:

Talking of unlocks, along with different tables and decks, you can also unlock one special item per player, won if they bet it at the start of a tournament, and you’re the one to knock them out. The rarity of their appearances is deliberate, as these are unlocks for TF2. Strong Bad’s Dangeresque, Too? glasses, Max’s gun and badge, Tycho’s Spy watch, and the Heavy’s enormous weapon, The Iron Curtain. (Although naturally, in-game, it’s referred to as “Sasha”, which would make it a pretty redundant unlock.)
Sigh – I just played another hand at this point. I fold after Max raises the blinds by his usual 12 times. It’s just Max and the Heavy left in. The Heavy was only a few chips over that so went all in, and Max responded by, er, going all in too. What? When Max won with AQd, Tycho told him off for playing “rubbish cards”. No.

I wasn’t expecting a high quality poker game. Mostly because there just hasn’t been one, ever. No one has released a poker game that can convincing bluff or be bluffed, and it’s understandably tricky to program that sort of AI. But this is absolutely woeful. It doesn’t seem to know the rules of hold ‘em, it certainly doesn’t know how to play hold ‘em, and it’s unfortunately not funny enough, or funny for nearly long enough, for it to be worth playing the crapshoot just to hear the gags. That lasts maybe two mini-tournaments, and then you’re done.
It’s incredibly cheap, around £3, and that does make a really enormous difference. And it’s animated really nicely, each character maintaining their unique style. But sadly, as funny as a lot of the lines definitely are, it doesn’t last, and it doesn’t have a workable poker game underneath it to make it worthwhile.


Now, I enjoyed Tycho and Heavy when they were bantering with each other.
And I hate Max. Max ALWAYS rivers me.
report
What a horrible review this was. For $5, the price of a good hamburger, you get some awesome voice acting and a good texas hold em game (the author is wrong, the mechanics are fine for most people)
I mean… seriously. Five dollars. And he spent this much time trashing the game. Why this review actually got linked on steam is beyond me.
report
The characters do bet stupidly, he’s right on that. Personally I rather enjoyed it and have played about 30 tournaments so far, but I’m not a great poker player. I’ve only played about 10 nights of texas hold’em in my life before this game.
At first I would lose about every other tournament, but I’ve gotten to the point where I walk away the winner 75% of the time. It has improved my game, but that’s because I was a relative rookie to begin with. I got better on fundamentals, but this won’t really challenge an experienced player.
report
Yeah the game is pretty buggy, I played quite a few hands that ended with someone having ACE high and my having a pair, and some freakin how the computer won it.
Garbage.
report
This review is crap.
The game is great.
Dialogue is funny.
Their poker strategies are actually not bad.
report
For £3, it’s a great soundboard :)
report
And yet £3 is cheaper than many items in the TF2 item store, making this perhaps a good deal? I FEEL GLOOMY NOW.
report
So basically it’s only an excuse for the TF2 items? :-(
/tries not to go on a poker is overrated rant
report
Poker sure is a bit over-hyped nowadays, but from a pure mathematical standpoint, it is quite a fascinating game.
report
Oh I agree, I just find that it is often overblown compared to other, equally fascinating games (the hype like you said) and dislike the whole seriousness following from it. For better or for worse, there is a serious luck factor there, which is often denied vehemently by some of its adherents (don’t take this as me saying that there’s not a lot more to it, but I get the creeps from people smugly going that it has nothing to do with luck).
report
You won’t find any professional poker player out there that doesn’t think it’s gambling either, in general it’s the terrible ones who read a book or two and think they’re awesome that spout the annoying as hell crap like “poker isn’t gambling if you’re good”, yes you have a mathematical edge which you can’t get in any casino game, but casinos are still gambling with their customers, they’re just doing it with an essentially infinite bankroll in comparison, which means in the long run they’ll profit.
report
@Rinox:
I always used to say that knowing how to play poker means that you maximize your profits when you are lucky and minimize your losses when you aren’t. And if you know how to do that you are pretty much able to consistently win more money than you lose (in online real money poker, that is).
report
I think poker’s over-popularity has long since passed. That was three or four years ago. The WSOP’s Main Event is still very popular, but not as popular as it once was.
And while of course there is luck involved – that’s what all the percentages are about – there’s a reason why some people consistently do better at it than others. The element of chance that’s involved is mathematics, and playing according to those maths takes skill.
So yes, I may have a 95% chance of winning a hand on the river, and you may have only a 5%, and of course one in twenty times you will win. However, one applies skill before and during these times. In fact, the more you play, the more you realise the cards in your and others’ hands aren’t that relevant for much of the game – it’s about how you play them, the odds forming a part of that.
That’s why people get annoyed when others say, “But it all comes down to luck, doesn’t it?” No, it absolutely does not. Luck’s a part of it, but often the statistics will go against you and despite making the mathematically correct play, you’ll still lose.
I have a friend who plays an awful lot of poker, and has the worst luck of anyone I know in the game. He is constantly given the worst beats, and dealt the most incessantly awful cards, and he loudly complains about it. But he tends to cash in most games he plays, tends to be near the top of leaderboards, if not at the top.
report
There’s a reason there are thousands of professional poker players, making a comfortable living off of nothing but their winnings. There’s also a reason there are no professional craps players. Or professional roulette players, etc.
It’s easy enough to say that it’s overhyped, but unlike sports or other games, poker is one of the only games out there where you can make a career purely out of your own abilities, with nobody else having to hire you or validate your expertise. There’s also the fact that you don’t have to be the best to make a lot of money playing it.
I don’t really get why lots of people seem to think that poker is overhyped, but meanwhile they aren’t throwing these same insults at much more boring games (IMO) like football or basketball or whatever.
report
I agree with all that – but I do think that at the higher (-est) levels, luck becomes (somewhat ironically)more of a deciding factor. Since there are only so many ways to read a poker play and often everyone at the table has a very good idea of what they are doing and what the others are doing, it’s less of a ‘who is the better player’ and more of a ‘what is in the moment’ type of game.
@ Tyshalle: I merely think it’s overhyped compared to other games. And I wouldn’t compare poker to professional sports. In professional sports, you can consistently win (like, world champion win) if you are the best. In poker, your skill isn’t the only deciding factor on the outcome.
report
Also, to echo Walker a bit, a lot of the luck people seem to read into poker comes from tournaments, where the luck factor is huge. This is because people are forced into taking chances as the blinds double every hour (or online every 3-10 minutes). When you start out with $30,000 in chips in the Main Event with blinds at 50/100 (or whatever they are), this gives you plenty of time to feel your table out, figure out who the suckers are, and make some plays. But when those blinds have been enormously escalated to like 50,000/100,000 with 10,000 antes, and you’ve only got a stack of $2,000,000 chips, there’s a reason why people are shoving all-in pre-flop with junk like Ace Seven off-suit.
If you want to see poker in its pure form, check out the cash games. This is where skill matters much, much more than luck. There’s still luck involved; it’s what keeps the suckers coming back, knowing that they can get lucky even if they make the bad choices. But long-term, the good players are gonna win out over the bad players.
report
@Rinox
Not trying to come across as a psycho poker advocate here, but your logic sounds like it’s coming from somebody from the outside looking in.
If you want to talk about the Main Event, which is basically the only super-hyped poker tournament around, then okay. I suppose saying that your skill isn’t the only deciding factor in whether or not you win is true. But that’s one tournament. And it’s a tournament, so the luck factor is much better.
But most of the greats are cash game players. Phil Ivey, Patrick Antonious and Tom Dwan, probably the three best poker players in the world, are consistent winners in online and live cash games. Dwan for instance, regularly makes over a hundred thousand dollars in a single session cash game (given, he’s playing like 4+ tables online, but still). But he hasn’t cashed in the Main Event even once.
So it’s really just about how you’re judging it, and it probably explains why so many people who have experience with poker go crazy on internet forums where people are talking about how it’s all about luck or whatever. If you want to judge all of poker based on a single tournament, then okay, I guess you’re “right.” But if you broaden your view up a bit (or a lot) you’d probably come to a completely different conclusion.
report
There is as much luck as many other games people dont complain about.
In soccer, you could walk into a depression in the ground, and trip. Luck of the pitch. A pigeon can fly in front of your pitch in baseball, luck of the pitch.
In poker, everyone gets the same luck over time, yet some consitently win.
Weird, right?
report
I completely agree with this review. Sometimes, sense is there, but a lot of the times, the fun of the game is diluted by the monotony of their tabletalk and complete random play. I can get more enjoyment out of a an online strip poker game (that is ‘poker’ in its loosest sense).
… Unless I get busted out, and I can see the completely random AI at work without having to involve myself in second-guessing games.
But more than the game, I’m honestly disappointed at the characterisation. I was expecting more verbal fireworks, more characteristic animation and needling one way or the other between the dysfunctional videogame heros. Tycho is so lacklustre it’s almost realistic, Sam’s antics are a joy to watch but I don’t get his humor, Strong Bad’s cool but lacks the spark, and the only character I really liked was Heavy. He was the only character whose personality really shined through (such as the stoic ‘I am bet.’, or ‘In.’). In retrospect, he must have been also easiest to write.
I’m sad that the personality traits didn’t find their way into their playing styles. The styles seem to change from hand to hand, which is infuriating. Heavy could be loose-passive who tilts a lot, Tycho could be cool and collected tight aggressive calculating machine (or even a rock), whereas Sam should be a loose maniac and Strong Bad could make big, ego-inflating bluffs while other than that he bows down aggression with a sadface. Now it’s me who is making a sadface.
Anyway, fun for the few bucks, but I would pay $17 more if the realized potential was there that is currently lacking. Severely.
DISCLAIMER: Yes, I play poker. And no, random poker isn’t fun. Profitable, maybe, but fun, no.
report
And that completely went in the wrong reply box. Oh well!
report
Uhhh… Brian wrote: “casinos are still gambling with their customers, they’re just doing it with an essentially infinite bankroll in comparison, which means in the long run they’ll profit.”
No. This is not why casinos win. They don’t win because they can’t run out of money for betting (hint: they can, they’d go broke). They win because ALL casino games are weighted statistically in favour of the casino.
report
Sad, but so very true. It is strange that both Telltale and Valve, which I hold in rather high regards, committed to such an awful, awful project. It’s buggy, there’s only a handful of dialogue (of which some lines are really funny, admittedly) and the underlying poker game is one of the worst I’ve every played. Seriously. It’s like a RNG determines whether your opponent folds, calls or raises with another RNG determining the bet size.
report
Actually, if they had a pure, working, random number generator, that would be MORE impressive than the idea or concept.
report
I have managed to scare them off pots but you really have to bet over the odds to do this. It’s as if they’re either going to go all the way (or near enough) or try and see cards for as cheap as possible (like a newbie). Getting value out of hand and then winning it is very tricky because the players don’t seem to react to their odds of winning dropping. I have been rivered so many times by hands that were way weaker before that final card than the betting would suggest. It is as if the odds weren’t being calculated at all.
report
I am one of these newbies who has never played even a half-serious game of hold-em in my life. I find the game enjoyable enough and for £3 I suppose it’s worth it… still, probably wouldn’t recommend it if you’re not massively obsessed with TF2, Sam & Max, HSR or PA. Mostly TF2 though.
report
I thought the same thing. The game is fine, if you’re not a huge dork about Poker. I mean fan. Still, though, John using the term “the river” means he knows more about it than the average TF2 player, since it’s never used in game as a term. At five bucks or so, were Poker fans really expecting the end all Poker game? I really think the game was intended for the rest of us with a passing interest. Also, leave the settings on default.
report
I’m sure COD:BLOPS is an amazing game if you’ve never played an FPS before but I don’t think that’s the best way to review a game.
report
I agree with this review, but I still recommend buying it. It’s cheap enough that you can play it for a few hours, get all the unlocks, hear all the dialogue and be satisfied.
The main reason to play it is the atmosphere and the banter, in my opinion. The game is pretty much secondary. Once that wears off, I probably won’t play it any more, but I’ll certainly have got my money’s worth.
report
I don’t quite understand. The other AI players being not very good makes it harder to win? If this was any other game, say, League of Legends or Battlefield, I would say that’s the poor excuse of a sore loser.
report
I think what John meant was like, when you’re playing football (soccer) with people who aren’t regular players, they’ll often do unexpected moves or make strange decisions that will mess up your game because every game has a sort of ‘meta ruleset’ in which everyone kind of knows what to do and what not to do, even though it’s not an invalid or ‘bad’ tactic per se.
I personally like to play with really serious poker players and then pull the strangest shit, they have no idea wtf you’re doing and have to make completely blind calls which scares them. It’s good fun.
report
I do carefully explain this in the piece. Anyone who plays poker will echo this – someone playing randomly, or extremely badly, makes it a very difficult game to play. Bad beats are bad beats.
report
Yeah, John described it pretty good in his WIT. Nothing spoils the fun in poker more than playing with people who just just play batshit insane. In our poker rounds, we scared those people off by having a 10€ buy-in :-P
report
That’s part of poker. Reading what the other players are doing and predicting why they’re doing it is half the game. Throw in an AI that does crazy things, and it makes it impossible to guess what move you should be making.
report
As someone who regularly plays (and wins) in online poker, I will say that playing in the 50 cent games (with stacks of $50) are much easier for a thinking, experienced player, than the 2 cent games are. In fact, I was a break-even player for close to two years before I moved up to 50NL and then my profits immediately began to soar.
When people are willing to fold their hand, even when they have a flush draw or an open-ender, the game stops becoming purely about luck and the skill factor really takes over. Especially in cash games, where the escalating blinds don’t force you to take bigger and bigger risks.
report
I don’t pretend to know anything about poker but surely if playing irrationally makes rational play impossible, then rational play is just an illusion arising out of agreed conventions about how the game “should” be played?
report
It is a bit of a paradox.
report
Throw in one crazy player and it makes it tough. It’s usually best to avoid going up against that player till heads-up. But if all opponents are playing randomly then it doesn’t matter how you play, you’re in a game of luck at this point and your only option is to play tight and only chase the really, really good hands. I prefer playing loose and then tightening up against a higher stacks.
I can only do that to a point in this game, getting any value and keeping it is a bigger gamble than it should be. I flopped a full house, played it slow (for which I got an achievement) and then when I put the pressure on I just couldn’t get the opposition off the pot. I then got rivered by a king high straight. Max went all-in against my all-in by chasing a straight. Nobody with any poker experience does that. Thankfully I didn’t bust due to being chip-leader.
I’m trying not to say the game cheats or predetermines opponent actions but when Max whips out his prescient toy of power it makes you wonder. I think the bunny cheats, I’ve not felt that way with the other characters. I’m just going to have to play tight and let some good hands go, I already avoid playing 3-handed and up. Just too many variables.
report
I still don’t see how a bizarre play is necessarily a negative thing. Wouldn’t making a weird or bad play to rattle the other players be a legitimate tactic? I like to make the occasional batshit move in chess to try and throw my opponent off; if I can perplex them to the point where they make a bad move, the better for me.
report
@Grundlewart
The problem is that making that irrational, brainless move is likely not going to work and will cost you money. It’s 100% definitely true that bad players make the game tougher for good players, because at that point they are basically forced to just play their cards and the odds. The problem is, they can still figure your play-style out, and if they judge you to be completely batshit insane, they’re likely gonna just wait for top pair and bust you.
Good players frequently do weird things to try and mix up their play, to try and confuse other good players as to what they’re trying to do. But a lot of poker is working out what kind of player your opponent is. Some players are hyper aggressive, constantly raising and re-raising. Some hyper-aggressive players are hyper-aggressive only with big hands, and others do it with crap hands. Some people are super loose and passive, meaning they’re willing to continue to call even if they don’t have anything, some players are tight and passive, meaning they’ll hit big hands but instead of raising they just check and call. Good poker players figure out what kind of player you are and they use that against you.
So if you’re a good player and you’re known for only playing good hands, but playing them aggressively, and then suddenly you decide to re-raise pre-flop with a hand like 6-7 suited, you might get your opponent to fold a big hand pre-flop, like Ace Queen or something. But that’s because you mixed up your play during one hand, when 98% of the time you are playing with a brain.
Bad players meanwhile will just do random shit, and you can’t ever really figure out what they’re doing. But bad players tend to show down a lot of hands, so you can work them out too. Frequently they’ll wind up showing down hands that they didn’t hit until the river (the last card to come out), letting good players know that they will call big bets without a hand, and are willing to draw to the river. Mathematically, if you’ve got an 87% chance of winning on the flop, it doesn’t matter if they’re gonna win 13% of the time by the river. You want to bet, and bet big, to make the math of their call so terrible that long term, you will always make money from them.
There’s a lot of variance with bad players though. Because that 13% of winning is frequently more like a 30% chance of winning, and after a hundred hands, you’re likely gonna lose a few big ones to them, which is frustrating. But you’re still gonna win long-term. And the bad player is still gonna lose.
report
Seems to me it’s the same with button-mashers in fighting games. They don’t know enough about the game to be bluffed by feigns and baited into comboes, and playing against them is frustrating, as no amount of planning or strategery will work. Sure, you can just pelt them with projectiles over and over, but it doesn’t make for a fun match.
report
Bad opponents are a good thing, if your aim is to win money in the long run. Against crazy-loose bad players though, the appropriate counter-strategy is pretty boring, so if you’re playing for fun rather than money they can be frustrating. Also, crazy opponents can increase the level of variance, so it’ll take you longer to hit the ‘long term’ and see your results converge on what they should be. But anyone who says ‘bad players are harder to play against’ is being misleading and/or self-deluding.
report
This happens a lot in Diplomacy. Most everyone who’s played secures their borders and begins negotiating, but someone who’s new will make moves at random despite any talk you’ve done, thoroughly ruining all the talks that happened for the last half hour.
It’s really tough to play a game about negotiation (poker being mostly non-verbal and indirect) when someone doesn’t know what goals they should be striving for. It’s like trying to haggle a street vendor who doesn’t know what any of his wares are worth. You’re equally likely to get screwed as you are to score, so why bother really?
report
“It’s like trying to haggle a street vendor who doesn’t know what any of his wares are worth. You’re equally likely to get screwed as you are to score, so why bother really?”
That’s the thing, though: dealing with that street vendor would be extremely profitable for you, because you know roughly what his goods are worth, so you know which ones are selling for a bargain price and which ones would be a rip-off. Make the most of the bargains, ignore the rip-offs, and bam, easy money.
It’s the same with bad poker players: as long as you adjust your playstyle appropriately, the money will go your way in the long run. If you’re losing to bad opponents, then a) you’re doing something wrong, b) you’re going through a run of bad luck, or c) your opponents aren’t actually bad. If they’re bad then they’ll lose money in the long run (though the long run can be surprisingly long), and that money has to go somewhere. (Of course, it could all be going to the house in rake, but in that case the rake is too high or your edge is too small.)
report
@MD
You’re right. However, John’s point is, (and any serious poker player would agree with him -strickly on this) the nature of the game being played, the game itself, of poker played with those that can play is a totally different experience, full of nous and degrees of skill. The game of playing against idiots is strickly one of number-crunching, poker reduced to some of its fundamentals – any attempt to play “serious” poker in these circumstances, i.e. pretending you are playing against other people that fully grasp the situation they are in, will be really difficult. Yes you can still play the limited, defensive game of only betting on fuck-off fantastic hands, but that is a different and far duller game – poker would not be as popular as it is today if that was what it ultimately consisted of. This rather joyless version of poker on offer, mixed with the grating voice acting, apparently offers about half an hour of entertainment. Tbh if we weren’t in the age of Steam sales and GoG, £3 would probably sound a better deal for that.
report
@DMcCool: Yeah, I don’t disagree with that. As I said earlier:
“Bad opponents are a good thing, if your aim is to win money in the long run. Against crazy-loose bad players though, the appropriate counter-strategy is pretty boring, so if you’re playing for fun rather than money they can be frustrating. ”
But I don’t think that’s what John said. It might be what he meant, but when he says things like “someone playing randomly, or extremely badly, makes it a very difficult game to play” it’s hard not to read that as perpetuating the ‘bad players are hard to beat’ myth.
report
Bought it for the TF2 items, hoping it would be a fun game as well. Found out how stupid the AI was and got all the items in 1-2 hours. The game is terrible…and I love Telltale and Valve.
Tycho’s Giraffe story was good though.
report
A few dozen tournaments and I still haven’t heard that one. I’m not sick of the game yet, though, so it’ll probably come along eventually.
Really I just right-click to skip past any dialogue I’ve already heard, which is most, so it comes back around to my turn rather quickly.
report
I was very disappointed when the Telltale big reveal was a poker game, and not even a good one it seems. I think I’ll just wait for the funny bits show up on youtube.
report
“It’s just pot luck, random, bingo, a waste of time”
So it’s just like poker then?
report
Your not liking, and very probably not understanding poker does not make it a waste of time. You’ve become confused.
report
No doubt. The people who claim it’s all about luck are always the people who play it like a crapshoot and then blame the site/house when they lose.
report
See this? This is a pin. It’s commonly used to deflate the egos of defensive people, who believe that they’re Gods at their given past-time, and get all jumpy and–as mentioned–defensive when their perceived dominance is challenged.
It could be perfectly valid for him to consider Poker a waste of time, whilst understanding it. I mean, I have an innate understanding of how organised religion works, but I think that’s a waste of my time, and an ungodly mess, something that could probably be done better if a more logical and ethical mind was applied to it, along with some lateral thinking.
Poker, organised religion, it’s all the same… it’s a position where people believe that because they’re in a certain camp, they believe that they’re better than other people. Some people believe that they’re better because they’re rich, because they’re religious, or because they’re good at poker. Often it’s simply a matter of overcompensating for something.
How a person feels about poker is not a grounds to insult them and/or their intelligence, unless you’re a bit of an egotistical prat, really. And no, I don’t pull punches no matter who I’m talking to.
report
He’s free to think it’s a wast of time, but saying that it’s just random luck indicated that he doesn’t know anything about it. I think talking trash about something you don’t know enough about is a perfectly fine reason to insult someone.
report
Wulf, I doubt that if I took a leisure activity you enjoy and made criticisms of it that you considered objectively false, before dismissing it as “a waste of time”, you’d consider that fair comment. There’s a gulf between what John and Tyshalle reacted to and what you defended.
report
Incidentally, Guild Wars is a soulless, grind-heavy WoW-clone with shit art. Random, compulsive clicking with none of WoW’s wit or charm: what a waste of time.
report
The AI is indeed terrible. Having spent the last semester writing a poker AI myself, i know hard it is to make a good one. But it’s still saying a lot, when 2 guys can write a better one as a side project in three months than telltale can for a commercial product.
Another issue is, that you can sometimes see the cards the opponents fold. That happens a lot with Tycho and sometimes with the Heavy when the game chooses a low camera perspective.
Considering the low price it’s still allright. Made me laugh a couple of times. I like all the characters in the game.
report
Out of interest, have you tried your AI against theirs?
report
Unfortunately the rule set of our AI is very different, it would be a lot of work to change our AI to make it able to compete against Inventory.
Ours is for a fixed limit cash game as opposed to Inventory’s no-limit tournament.
Fixed Limit is easier for an AI, but cash game is harder.
In tournament play, as the blinds increase, preflop play becomes more and more important. Our AI is pretty good at preflop play, while Inventory is horrible.
Post-flop, our AI and Inventory play very similar, overestimating the hand strength. Ours of course doesn’t do all these massive overbets considering it’s a fixed limit AI, but determining a bet size is a pretty easy thing to do.
All in all, i am pretty sure that our AI would be a lot better than Inventory’s if modified for no-limit tournament play.
I think, one reason why Inventory’s AI is so bad, is because Telltale wanted a smooth playing experience with little waiting time. Most of the time, the characters make their decision instantly, only sometime do they announce they have to think about it(If the game actually thinks about it is another question).
For comparison, our AI tries to take approximately seven seconds for all actions in a hand, so it’s usually two to three seconds per action. This was a rule of the competition we entered, given more time, the AI plays better.
report
I normally agree with Wot I think but this was a little harsh.
There’s a couple hours of genuine entertainment here and it costs less than a pint.
report
Gobernor of Poker FTW.
report
I picked up Governor of Poker about a month ago. Unfortunately I discovered that I don’t actually like poker as much as I thought I did. On the other hand, while I’m no expert it does seem to be at least moderately sensible about how it plays and might not be a bad alternative for anyone looking for a poker game.
report
I was just thinking, “You know, this may be a poor poker game, but it’s the best one I’ve played so far.” The others being Telltale Texas Hold ‘Em and Governor of Poker.
report
Try Master Poker
report
As a complete novice when it comes to poker (as geeky as it is, Three Dragon Ante is my card game of choice) I at least now know how to play it thanks to this game, blinds and all. Mostly *cough*.
report
report
I’ve heard of poker programs that were made in like, the 70′s or 80′s that were able to take on the professional players of the day and do okay (though they still lost). I don’t know how well they’d hold up these days though. Ever since the poker boom the game has become about a million times more difficult to win at, and I don’t think they’d be able to invent a program good enough to defend against it.
I’ve never seen one implemented in a videogame though. Red Dead Redemption had the best one I’ve seen, I think, and that one sucked terribly.
Honestly, the only way to get into a real poker game is to have real money on the line against real opponents. And in my experience it has to be enough money that the other player actually cares a little bit about not losing. I know that sounds douchey, but it is very true. Without real money on the line, there’s no real penalty to calling big bets just to see the turn or river card, to try and hit your 6-outer. And when that happens, the luck factor is much bigger, even though mathematically the good player will win out, the more you draw out the higher the variance is gonna be.
report
Some scientists created a complex ai for poker play that can beat professionals some of the time at holdem but even that was only 1v1
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/07/10/43658/battle-of-chips-computer-beats.html
report
scientists created it?! well no duh it’s gonna be good!
report
That wasn’t the point I was making, the point I was making was that it can beat professionals some of the time in 1v1 the simplest form of texas holdem and it’s using a lot of computer power and learns from players as they play, also it’s an expensive university funded project.
report
If you’re looking for a genuine poker simulator … then it’s not going to be fun for you.
I agree with the repetition of lines getting tiresome, though. Hard to see what they could have done to make this better without jacking up the price, though.
report
Now I was thinking that I was terrible at poker (I still may be) but I haven’t managed to win a single game yet. it must be me assuming the other players are making rational decisions or had their own personalities.
I got close once when 3 other players bet 70% of what they had when the highest any of them had was a 9. I felt slightly silly holding a flush. Guess I’ll just finish with this once I have the tf2 items. really wanted a good poker game too…
report
Try turning the difficulty up. This made it slightly less awful for me.
report
Really, this review is astoundingly harsh. Yes, the AI isn’t great, but it also is completely in-character. Max admits to barely even looking at the cards and betting based on what parts of him itch. Strong Bad is wildly overconfident all the time. The Heavy is very simple, folding when he thinks there’s no hope, and never backing down once he’s decided to bet high, and if he’s bluffing he’ll keep it going in an attempt to try and make you fold. The only halfway smart one at the table is Tycho, who actually plays half-decently (especially at the higher difficulty levels), even if he isn’t that great.
The four personalities actually do have very distinct play-styles.
I don’t think anyone expected it to be a serious poker sim. It’s a super-casual (aimed at beginners, for the most part), ultra-budget-priced (seriously, £3.. I reiterate: £3) excuse to waste 15-20 minutes at a time with a bunch of funny characters. It’s an alternative to Solitaire or Minesweeper, not a serious poker match.
report
My thoughts exactly. I’m having a lot of fun with the game, and for $5, I’m entirely satisfied.
report
Can’t help thinkin it’s a pretty good approximation of a poker game against those four characters.
Any poker game with Max at the table is going to be random as hell.
report
Yeah – this is what I’m getting at. The AI isn’t great, but each characters personality and playstyle is very well represented. Tycho is the only smart/capable player there, really, but he’s cautious and easily spooked into folding. The Heavy is dumb and easily read, but hard to shake. Strong Bad isn’t a total moron, but he’s full of hot air. Max is what would happen if you played the game by randomly mashing your face against the keyboard, although he CAN be scared into folding by a really shockingly high bet. Sometimes.
And that’s exactly how Max would play Poker.
It’s a poor representation of serious competitive poker, but I don’t think it ever tried to be that. What it is (and what it manages to do excellently) is portray a game of poker between four cartoon/videogame/comic characters.
report
Agreed, the author was extremely bias in this review. many people who baught this might not have even played poker before. One of them was me and on that part I had alot of fun and I LOLed alot.
Also you try recording thousands of ways to say “fold, in, check, call, bet”. you dont want to? thats what I thought.
God, this is not as bad a game as you say it is, but yet you still crap all over it in a bias review.
report
I bought the game having no idea how to play Texas Hold ‘Em (I’m guessing this is featured in the game). It has been a lot of fun.
Maybe this $5, jokey poker game wasn’t designed for cynical, overly serious poker players?
I think someone like me who has no idea how to play poker, wants to hear some interesting dialog between characters who would never interact outside of this scenario, and are willing to suspend disbelief a little, can really enjoy it.
There is no excusing some of the more blatant bugs or poor design decisions. But you seem to be judging the game based on something no one in their right mind could expect it to be – even you admit this. It isn’t ‘Poker Simulator at the Inventory’.
report
Seriously. This is barely even a review – it’s a rant by someone who takes their poker VERY SERIOUSLY, and seems aghast that a £3 comedy super-beginner level poker game with videogame/cartoon/comic characters isn’t a gritty and realistic simulation.
report
I don’t take poker that seriously, as it happens. But if something is for beginners, then it surely must be able to play the game? This absolutely cannot. Bad poker game, plus half an hour’s funny lines. Like I say, £3 makes a big difference. But it’s still a badly made, buggy game, and woeful at poker.
report
No, I think you’re taking it a lot more seriously than its intended to be. Surely a big clue is that this is a single player poker game. I’m hearing a lot of the same arguements that I hear at Civilization forums between players who want the AI to play to win and others who just want to build Pyramids and see Lincoln act like Lincoln.
I thought this was a decent £3 game that taught me the basic rules, rituals and some of the horribly impenetrable lingo for playing poker and in 4 hours saw no bugs or crashes and was still getting new dialogue at the end. Your mileage may vary indeed.
report
You don’t take Poker too seriously at all! You just wrote a rambling, angry 1500+ word review of a £3, comedy casual poker game…
Yeaaaah.
report
Come on Dom, don’t make this look like one of those horrible comments threads from other sites that get linked here. One of the advantages of the WIT format is that we get opinionated opinions that are knowingly subjective.
But it might be nice if John were to acknowlege his particular bias here!
report
I confess. I’m biased in favour of good games. I’m sorry.
(Really, what are you talking about?)
report
John isn’t saying NO ONE should like this game. He’s saying, rather clearly, that people who play poker will probably find it crap. And I think he’s not far off from thinking that people who play poker AND who read this site might have thought to give this game a go – and would be disappointed by it.
If it’s $5 for the novelty of seeing these characters interact, I think that’s actually too expensive. If that’s all we want why not just film a cartoon?
report
I don’t think he needs the help, but I must confess that I am a reasonably experienced poker player who was steered away from this game due to this review. And I’m happy about that.
report
@yutt
I’m a semi serious poker player and I prefer playing with people who vaguely know what they’re doing. The AI makes some immensely dumb calls that anyone with half a mind wouldn’t do.
I still enjoyed it. As soon as Max is busted out. That bastard always rivers me and his voice grates. A lot.
report
@Dominic White – This is a video-game site. He’s a video-game reviewer. It’s his job to write reviews of games.
Is it just me or is there a strong current of anti-intellectualism in this thread? As if it were a bad thing that the reviewer knows something about the subject matter of the game. Do people also want FPS reviews that are essentially “This game is amazing! You actually get to see through the eyes of a soldier and control him, as if you were in a war!”.
report
If a beginner to poker is reading this review, something should click in their head when they realize that Walker is an experienced player… I don’t think he should be required to openly admit something like, “I am an experience poker player which means my perspective on this game may be very different than the perspective of a beginner, so when you’re reading about the different aspects of this game throughout my review, take that into consideration if you seriously consider buying this game.”
That should be implied when using any critical thought process to think of how reviews and opinions work.
And his criticism of the game seems undisputed – those of you who criticize him for taking the review/game too seriously are simply criticizing his personal opinion, and like I said, he shouldn’t have to hold your hand and explain to you that he’s not God and does not have some objective stance to make a satisfying review for everyone. And I don’t think that’s what he was intending to do, and I don’t think that’s what reviewers should try to do.
report
Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll patch it quickly to work out some of the kinks.
I am not a poker player, and I also got frustrated with the AI’s stupid bets. And its ability to make me lose when even *I* knew I had the winning hand. The repetitive dioaloge is also tedious, but the cost to add more is likely too prohibitive to get upgraded.
report
Sounds like they should have just made a short film of these characters playing poker and pasted it up on Youtube. Which, incidentally, is where I will now be going to see the funny bits of this game, rather than actually buying it.
report
I liked it.
report
After reading through John’s comments in this thread he is obviously *far* too obsessed with the intricacies of poker to give a fair review of this game. If you are like him, don’t buy it.
If you like any combination of Homestar Runner, Penny Arcade, TF2, and/or Sam and Max, and aren’t too into poker but willing to try having fun – there is plenty of fun to be had.
report
Let’s just get this straight.
I know how to play poker. That seems a reasonably sensible qualification for someone reviewing a poker game. If this were a backgammon game – a game I have no idea how to play – I think people would be rightly miffed if I were to review it, and therefore have no idea if the AI was any good, was a worthwhile opponent.
I’m also a really enormous fan of Strong Bad, and get a lot of enjoyment from Valve’s characters, and the most recent series of Sam & Max. These are characters I like. There’s about half an hour’s fun to be had from that, like I say.
But really, to suggest that someone understanding the subject matter means they can’t give a “fair review” is outrageous.
report
@John Walker
I suppose we must simply have irreconcilably different perspectives. I have enormous respect for you as a writer, reviewer, and cultural gatekeeper. In this situation I don’t think your opinion happens to parallel my experiences.
Mind you, I am not saying your opinion should mirror mine, or is incorrect in any way. I appreciate that you give strong reviews based on your own experience rather than trying to cater to a muddled middle like most “reviews”. That is what makes RPS invaluable.
In summary: Keep being way too serious about poker.
report
Heh, will do : )
report
Actually, that’s the thing. I’m fairly sure the game was targeted at people that can’t, and don’t, play Poker. Knowing what you’re doing means you’re not the target audience, and it’s probably a safer bet to target those that can’t play Poker for a five dollar game than those who can.
report
I agree with the above. The game is for people who have no clue how poker works, though even at the end of a hand I’m sometimes unsure why the ‘winner’ won.
Thinking about it, I don’t know how the thing could really be reviewed. You say you expect a poker game to ‘know how to play poker’, but if you sat down at a poker table with four random strangers, would you really expect them to know how to play poker? All you can really ask from the ai is consistency. I can’t really say if it manages that or not, but it’s worth bearing in mind that consistently random is still consistent.
The technical issues are a separate matter, of course. Shame it bugs, seems like qc was a little lax on this £3 game :P
report
Well, that could be why it’s a Wot I Think instead of a review.
report
Great review.
Maybe the AI is roleplaying being dumb?:)
report
I think I’d like to learn how poker works only that I don’t know anybody who plays, and learning how to play just to play online sounds like a surefire way for me to lose a lot of my money.
report
Deposit $50 onto Full Tilt or PokerStars, sit at the 2 cent tables where you can buy in for $2 each, or try the tournaments which can be played for as little as a dollar or less, and you’ll get many hours worth of gameplay for your money. More than you would for your average $50 modern PC game, to be honest.
Except unlike other games, if you manage to get good at it you might make your investment back, and then some.
report
You can, in fact, play indefinitely on those services (certainly PokerStars) for no money whatsoever on their “play money” tables. That’s not a bad way to learn the rules of the game (and Hold ‘Em is pretty simple really – things like Omaha have a much steeper learning curve). It *is* probably a bad way to learn how to play for actual money, since you generally run into people playing, well, like the AI in this game does – huge raises pre-flop with nothing, and so on. You can win their pretend chips off them, but that probably doesn’t help all that much when you move up to games for actual money. As mentioned above, though, the cash games online cover a huge variety of prices – you can get a lot of entertainment out of a pretty tiny bankroll there.
I bowed and bought the game last night, and was irritated by a few of the things John mentions during the one game I played – rather wish I’d waited until after reading this now.
report
Out of interest John, do you have any preferred Poker sites or clients for some good games of Poker? As someone who plays and enjoys it myself I often feel a little sad that it’s rare to see any sort of round up or otherwise of various poker clients, even if the reasoning behind not featuring them on a site like this is understandable.
report
As for my thoughts on Inventory, they’re largely the same as yours John. It’s got to the point now where I’ll almost regularly go all in on every hand as I have about the same chance of winning either way. I went all in on a pair of Aces and was called by Strong Bad with a 2d7c pre-flop. Strong Bad won with two pair getting one on the flop and the second on the river, respectively.
report
The best I’ve found, and largely because of its simplicity (there’s no attempt to have bloody people fiddling with chips – just a name in a circle) is http://www.poker.co.uk/.
It still has lots of flaws, not least the ghastly messages telling you about games that are starting soon, but it’s the cleanest I’ve encountered.
report
@The_B
If you’re talking about real poker sites, where you can win and lose real money at, the two biggest ones are Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars. Both are completely legitimate, will never go out of business, and will never screw you over. In fact, if you’re unlucky enough to live in the United States, where our poker laws are ambiguous and pretty douchey, a few years ago a New York judge or someone trying to make a political move to get re-elected confiscated a whole bunch of poker winnings from players who cashed in via Full Tilt. We’re talking about millions of dollars here. Full Tilt took it as a loss and found another way to get the players their money.
PokerStars is the bigger site, but I don’t like their software as much. It’s clunkier, a bit less easy on the eyes, and worst of all, it’s much slower, which if you get good at poker becomes a real issue. Full Tilt is still an enormous website with like 25,000 players playing online at any given moment, and their site is much cleaner, much faster, and much more reliable. That said, they opted for the cartoon graphics, which is okay if you don’t mind it, but grinds on a lot of people’s nerves. That said, there are skins you can get to fix the tables. And really the most important thing, IMO, is the fact that in a given hour at a 9-handed table, you can get about 80 hands in on Full Tilt, while at PokerStars it’s more like 55 or so. This might not sound like a lot, but when you consider that poker players measure their success in terms of Big Blinds won per 100 hands (the average for a winning player being about 4BB), the more hands you get in per hour, the higher your hourly rate is.
Hope that helps, assuming you were talking about real poker sites, rather than just videogames. If not, sorry for wasting your time!
report
I’m a massive fan of Poker Academy. http://www.poker-academy.com It has adaptive AI and they regularly behave the sort of way you would want them to, playing the odds but occasionally bluffing.
report
Cheers guys.
I quite like PKR myself, although occasionally it can be a bit long winded with all the animations.
report
It doesn’t run on a netbook.
Finding out that a such a simple sub £5 game doesn’t is frankly a bit insulting.
report
So what is the Inventory, anyway?
report
It’s a dodgy back-room club.
report
Well. At least they know people will buy anything with these characters attached now.
report
Cheap crossover game in tacky throwaway shocker!
report
So if I don’t really give a shit about poker, and never will, is this game alright?
report
so …I don’t like jumping, should i try this Super Mario game?
report
Annoyingly the best strategy is very, very simple:
1. Fold everything that is not good.
2. If your cards are good, try to see the flop for cheap.
3. If you hit something, raise a third of your stack, three times.
Either they will fold (that is rare) and you win money.
Or they won’t, and have 95% chance of losing (their pair of 5s versus your pair of kings). In that case, you make a ton of money most of the time, and sometimes they get lucky.
Annoyingly, it does not make for dramatic moments at all.
report
I think what some people are missing is that, regardless of what you feel about the mechanics of poker or the hyped nature of the game or luck as a concept, the game isn’t any fun. And John carefully explained why it isn’t fun, and what you might expect of a poker game that IS fun. Because it’s a game review, not a celebration/defence of poker.
And I’m glad I read this before buying it, which I almost did for the low price and novelty. It sounds dreadful.
report
I think what you are missing is that the game is fun, for some people. John carefully explaining how something that I enjoyed isn’t fun is nonsensical. Obviously opinions on this game can vary wildly. Read the comments. Many of us have had hours of enjoyment from the game.
report
I’m with Dominic White and yutt on this, that’s one hell of a far-too-harsh review. But then I never understand why John is usually the one who reviews TTG’s stuff, both here and in print magazines, the way they’re always written makes it seem as though he never likes anything they do. Almost as if TTG had knocked him over on the street and never apologised.
report
So let me get this straight – John’s review is biased because he didn’t anticipate what people with experiences very different from his own would experience. If this was an RPG, if I’m getting this right, and John said the RPG mechanics were terrible, than he’d be biased against people who never play RPGs?
It’s a casual game, sure, but that doesn’t mean it can ignore the mechanics and underpinnings of the game it’s supposedly emulating, otherwise what is the point?
report
No, I’m saying that John rarely seems to acknowledge anything good about TTG, when others and even colleages do. I’m saying that perhaps reviews for these sort of games should go to someone who actually gets enjoyment from the genres TTGs dabbles with generally, because reading John’s reviews of TTG’s stuff since 2006 it seems that he doesn’t.
report
As he said in the review, he likes the Strong Bad games. He likes The last series of Sam’n'Max. He said as much in the piece.
KG
report
From before the site collapsed earlier:
My reviews of Telltale’s games have been pretty much in line with everyone else who has covered them for PC Gamer. Alec and Richard Cobbett have both reviewed their games along with me for PCG, and given similar marks. Low 50s to high 70s.
I thought the new series of Sam & Max was a massive improvement and often extremely good, and gave rave reviews to a number of the Strong Bad games, covering them a great deal here, including interviewing The Bros. Chap and the MD of Telltale, in a spoof spat between the two parties.
I have been critical of their poor games, because they were poor games. (I was one of very few who did not simply re-review Hit The Road over and over and over, while ignoring the game they were playing.)
Sorry to spoil your conspiracy with some pesky old facts.
report
Standards, innit.
report
I wasn’t trying to put forward a conspiracy, I’m simply conveying the impression I got from your reviews at that time. Consider me standing corrected.
report
You forgot to mention how horribly this game lags. I can run TF2 at max settings without so much as a hiccup, yet this thing lags so much it practically oozes along.
report
And it’s worse on a Mac. My Macbook Pro (with a Core2 and 2 GB or RAM, which isn’t high end, but certainly enough to run a game with as little action as PNATI) cannot run it above low settings, it’s still horribly sluggish and I cannot change the resolution at all without it crashing completely.
It feels more like a proof of concept than a real game.
report
Poker’s fun, but it’s no Gin Rummy or Bridge.
report
Blasphemy!
report
Pah! Silly card games…….dominoes is clearly where its at.
report
Excellent review. The game is pure shit and it infuriates me that I can be forced to play it to get my items. I feel like a dog being made to jump through hoops.
Valve, all the goodwill you’ve earned from me over the years is gone now. We’re back at square one after you made me do this. I’m upset.
report
“Made you”. There is a problem with this claim.
report
No, see, one of Gabe’s clones showed up on his doorstep with a shotgun and forced him to play the game. I gotta say, as soon as I read that post, my need for vitriolic responses went through the roof.
Seriously, dude. Did Gabe run over your dog, or what? This is a ridiculous response for attention, and if you need to resort to trolling (or even worse, this is how you talk) then I think you need to reevauluate your life, and go outside more. Even if you work outside, you need to go outside more. In fact, don’t reply. Just go outside. Thank you for your cooperation.
report
Don’t take two of my words out of context, asshat. I said, “made me play IN ORDER TO GET THE ITEMS.”
report
Because purely cosmetic items are the HEART AND SOUL of TF2, and how DARE Valve attach some PURELY COSMETIC AND UNNECESSARY ITEMS to a SILLY GAME. They FORCED me into purchasing it just to get their UTTERLY NON GAME AFFECTING items. How dare they. Screw their insane sales, quality games, and generally good attitude towards the mod community, FIVE TF2 ITEMS BLEW ALL MY GOODWILL ARGY BARGY.
report
You should be upset at yourself that you fell for the marketing ploy of pointless TF2 items and spent real money on them. It’s your own fault.
report
I pre-ordered this game for 3 euro 50 which is a steal for five or six TF2 items if you ask me. Don’t really care about poker much, but the convo’s made me laugh. Until -like John noted- they started repeating themselves.
report
Seeing Heavy look so bland shows off how much clever Valve apply with lighting in the TF2 engine.
I’ve been hearing people report that this thing can’t even identify and rank hands appropriately, too. Still, Telltale are laughing their way to the bank thanks to more TF2 dress-up accessories.
report
Apparently, a Queen-high Flush is better than a King-high Flush it just told me.
report
I’ve got a few complaints (such as why they stuck on a three minute cut-scene that is loaded with the main menu and will inevitably be skipped after the first couple of times you’ve seen it, making the initial load even more annoying, plus the fact that it has about the same amount of lines as Telltale Texas Hold ‘Em, which considering that was they’re first game, is a bit disappointing), but, all things considered, I’d say it’s better than Telltale Texas Hold ‘Em, mainly due to the price.
report
You might wanna check out PKR (pkr.com). Although it also has those constantly repeating lines, it’s certainly the most realistic virtual poker experience. For example, you see the other characters looking at their cards since players have to do that manually rather than seeing them all the time. Along with several taunts and behaviors, this adds some interesting psychological depth to the game. It’s free to play and has some fairly good graphics for a poker game. And guess what? It has online multiplayer! \o/
report
Sorry to link to an external review, but I happen to also be a fan of Ars Technica, and think they gave a great example of the contrary perspectives this game generates.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/11/all-my-friends-are-cartoons-poker-night-at-the-inventory-is-great.ars
report
I started watching a trailer for this a while back and just stopped watching when I heard Tycho speak. I don’t know why, but it was just so different to how I imagine him speaking that I couldn’t stand listening further, let alone buying the game.
report
Yeah, I haven’t read anyone complaining about his voice so far. But I agree, that’s not how he should sound. It’s the reason I can’t enjoy the new Monkey Island remakes, that IS NOT Guybrush thankyouverymuch.
report
Strange, because that is VERY MUCH Guybrush to me. The one voice in the remakes that actually threw me was Stan’s. I expected him to sound much more like some texan used car salesman for some reason…
report
Heh. I was a regular listener to the Penny Arcade podcast and I just assumed they would get Jerry Holkins to do the voice for Tycho. The voice actor for Tycho sounds nothing at all like Jerry. I was very disappointed.
(…yeah yeah Jerry =/= Tycho blah blah they look so much alike blah blah…)
report
Yeah, that was a pretty harsh review. I’ve put about 8 hours in so far, and while the limited dialogue gets old pretty quick, the game’s still an entertaining little diversion. Well worth the price, if you ask me.
report
Poker night at the Inventory: John’s New Vegas?
report
Nah. For a start, I can see why someone would think New Vegas is good.
report
Hi John,
I pre-ordered this because:
A) It was cheap
B) I fancied getting the TF2 items.
C) I’ve always wanted to learn to play poker properly.
I’m guessing that this game will not help with C!
But my question is, if I can’t really play well and the game plays nonsensically, do I stand a chance of achieving B?
report
Yes, but it’s a bit random at times. To get the items you have to play very conservatively and just try to see as many flops as possible.
report
I doubt there would be a significantly difference in rate of item aquisition even if they played well, since you need to be the person to bankrupt the owner of the item regardless of who wins the tournament.
report
So I need to win the hand in which they go bankrupt having divvied up their special item at the beginning of the tournament?
I’m guessing that it’s randomly decided at the start of a tournament if the item is on offer?
Can you just keep quitting tournaments until you get one where something is on offer?
Also, can you quit a tournament after you bankrupt them?
I’m just trying to reduce the amount of grind I will have to do to achieve my goal so that the dialogue doesn’t get too old.
report
I believe all of that is correct. In theory the only downside is that you’ll end up with a huge debt in the (useless) stat page.
report
Yes – the game plays so badly, randomly all-inning should probably get you the items pretty quickly, so long as a tourny begins with their offering one. Which is random. If you turn the banter to the lowest (which would be a shame, to miss them the first time), and plough through, I don’t imagine it would take too long. And the game contains instructions for the hands – click the ? when it’s your turn to play.
report
Here’s the thing – the other players in the game will not bet their items *unless* they are out of money to bet. Remove all the money they’ve won in previous games, and you might get their item.
report
You know all this discussion is reminding me a lot of Magic The Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers: A game that’s terrible for anyone who plays the real thing but a fun (and cheap) time waster for the more casual player who can overlook some issues.
I don’t know for sure if that means those are bad games or not, but it does mean they’re bound to be love it or hate it affairs.
Just make sure to find out which side of the divide you are before you invest on them.
report
Hmmm. Between this and the Myst post, looks like it’s time to start completely disregarding John Walker.
What a shame. Now Jim is carrying the entire site on his shoulders. Don’t let us down, Jim!
report
I really wonder why people seem to think there is something objective in subjective writing. A review is inherently subjective. But I still wonder why people think this. I see it over at Eurogamer all the time. If the review constructively tells you why the author thinks the product is bad, it has done it’s job. You don’t have to agree with a review.
I’ve read many reviews of stuff that concluded they didn’t like the product, but I derived from their text that I would enjoy it and got it. Those were good reviews, even though I didn’t agree with the conclusion.
Of course there is other things you can debate about, whether a low-price tag should mean a less harsh review, facts in the article is wrong, author has missed important details etc. You can even debate the conclusion, but in the end, it’s somebody’s opinion, not Encyclopaedia Britannica.
report
I agree with John in that the “playing poker” part of the game is poor. It truly is, even on the hardest of difficulty levels. I played two or three games in a row and won almost solely because I played the cards and not the players. You can’t play the players in this game; they do not play rationally. Clearly the people criticising John for taking poker too seriously don’t actually understand what the game’s about, and therefore would be unable to tell the difference between a good or bad poker game.
With all that born in mind, though, I do think it’s worthwhile for the price, which seems counter-intuitive when this is clearly a bad game. However, did I get three pounds’ worth of enjoyment from it? I can confidently say that I did. It made me laugh a couple of times, looks really nice and actually does a very good job in establishing rapport between the characters and player. It’s just a shame the AI is so braindead.
report
Cracking up at the comments here. This is a model video game review, and I wish more were like it. Walker brings all his knowledge and experience to bear in analyzing the game, explaining to the best of his ability exactly where and why he thinks it fails, both on the poker and comedy fronts.
All anyone can respond with is, “Well I thought it was fun! It has characters that I like! Plus, it’s cheap, so that magically makes the game better.”
I hope you all realize that you are in the same company as those who will buy an iCarly or Harry Potter game based solely on the box art. Also lol’ing at people telling him his opinion is too harsh because he isn’t sensitive enough to other people’s opinions.
report
Provided the people who got the game enjoyed it, why does it matter?
I’ve enjoyed blatanty poor or otherwise weak games in the past that I got for no other reason than they were cheap, and I’m not ashamed about it.
Heck, RPS itself has posted enthusiastically about buggy cheap games with zero AI in the past (see: Zombie shooter)
report
It matters when they turn around and try to criticize him or his review. Of course bad games (or movies, music, etc.) can be fun for a while, if you’re in the mood. But no one needs to be told that, so trying “balance” this review with those kinds of comments just looks whiny.
Everyone should be able to read Walker’s write-up, estimate how much they’re willing to spend on some amusing voice acting, and go from there. But let’s call a spade a spade and make reviews as critical, informative, and useful as possible, not pander to the readers with “If you like stuff like this, you’ll probably like this!” kinds of statements.
report
You’re right, of course. We should put player enjoyment in a vacuum, except when the reviewer fails to enjoy a game, in which case it’s incredibly important.
report
To clarify: I never said I agree with the backlash John is receiving, because I don’t, even though I find the review a bit over-agressive it’s a perfectly valid one.
My only point was that there isn’t really a problem with enjoying bad games.
And for that matter I don’t see what’s the problem of pointing out that a bad game can be fun. Assuming it’s a fairly objective review it can be fairly difficult (if not impossible) to understand exactly how fun a game is. In the same way that there are plenty of games with near perfect scores that many people did not enjoy, saying something is subpar doesn’t immediately mean it’s not fun, but you would never know that unless someone else pointed it out.
Hell, I had more fun playing the decisively mediocre Frontlines: Fuel of War than COD4, yet there’s little to nothing in the game that could be described as strictly better than COD. (both were bought heavily discounted, so I’m not taking price in consideration)
report
Nail-on-the-head, Mr Dervish. You have hit it.
report
@DeepSleeper
It’s the reasons, man. The reasons are what are valuable and useful to the reader, not whether the thumb is pointing up or down. lern2criticize.
report
Your realise it’s not a bad game because he says so? It’s subjective, just because he’s a reviewer doesn’t make his view the correct one. Sorry, I always get a bit irritated when people say they enjoyed a ‘shit’ game. What they mean is they enjoyed a game that got bad reviews, or people hated etc. Well if you liked it, it’s not shit. Your opinion is just as valid as theirs!
report
We’re clearly being too subtle when we title the articles “Wot I Think”.
report
@DrGonzo: Why are “being bad” and “being fun” incompatible? I noted that I liked games I personally considered poor.
report
Should John really take the price of the game into account? A lot of people here excuse the game by saying that it’s cheap; but I always thought a reviewer reviewed the game, not its price. The reader can decide on that himself. People’s tastes differ, but what people think is value for money differs much more, and I therefore don’t think it should be taken into account in a review.
report
Well doesn’t it depend one whether he is reviewing just the game, or whether he is reviewing the product. Personally I think the price is important.
report
One large aspect of a straight review is to act as a buyer’s guide. I would be far more willing to recommend you spend £10 on an average game than I would if it cost £40. It doesn’t make the game itself any better, but it lowers the threshold for whether it’s worth a try.
However, as we so subtly indicate, these are not straight reviews, but articles about wot WE think. We have embraced the subjectivity of reviews, and title them as such. Magazines and websites that fall over themselves to provide the impossible “objective” review are wasting everyone’s time, and mostly extremely dishonest.
I believe that my 12 years of experience as a games critic, and 30 years of playing games, and ability as a writer/communicator, means I’m in a position to put forward an opinion piece that is of value to others to read. I believe in this article I have highlighted the strengths (funny dialogue, excellent animation) and weaknesses (it’s a truly dreadful poker game) with explanation and justification. I have then given my reaction to it, which was a mostly unfavourable one, despite the low price (which, in this case, I paid myself.)
report
John: Thanks for the reply. I think it’s a fine piece of WIT; in fact, I enjoy all of these WITs more than regular reviews.
But your 30 years of experience can’t have given you any insight into my wallet. Maybe I’m a poor African child for whom £3 is a year’s earnings. Maybe I’m a billionaire who earns £3 by picking up a pen.
All you can tell are the game’s strengths and weaknesses – let’s sum them up as ‘shoddy’ for now (because that sounds British to me). Whether a shoddy game is worth £3 differs a lot per person. Some people in this thread seem to think that shoddiness is fine at that price, others don’t. I don’t think any buyer’s guide should tell me whether something is worth buying or not; it can only tell how much value you get and how much money you have to pay, whether that means I’ll get my money’s worth is something only I can derive from that, not the reviewer.
report
I think you’re right. A game’s properties are good, bad or average independently of the price. But then I think it’s also important to say, “But it’s also awfully cheap,” because as you note, people’s thresholds are different with different prices.
The big issue arises with the score. If a game costs £30, would it have been given a different score if it cost £25? It’s another good reason why scores are such a pain in the arse. There it seems silly to score it differently, but what if it was a game that last as long as a £40 game, but only cost £1? Does it change then?
I write PC Gamer’s budget section, where I *do* let prices affect the score, because I believe there it’s special circumstances. These are games being released for a second time, with the focus on value for money. But because I believe it’s still very problematic, I always say explicitly in the text that I’ve done this.
report
dogS!
report
Zwebbie, what do you mean “take price into account”? He didn’t put a score on the review and then give the game +10% for being cheap.
Are you saying he shouldn’t mention the price?
report
Urthman: No, I think this WIT is good; as I read it, John said “It’s shoddy, but cheap” and a lot of the commenters read that as “It’s shoddy even for its price”, which is something completely different.
report
Well I enjoyed it :-)
report
John: “The poker is terrible. The dialogue is the best bit. And it’s cheap.”
Comments:
No, John, you’re wrong. The dialogue is the best bit. The poker isn’t very good. But it’s cheap!
report
Uhm wins.
report
Two internets to Uhm.
report
I’ll be honest. I have only the vaguest idea how to play poker. I’ve been thinking of buying this to get a nice, easy poker game. Maybe I should reconsider. Does anybody know any good tutorials on how to play poker?
report
As observed, the game isn’t actually all that good at poker, which is a good thing ™ if you’re also not very good. I’ve managed a couple of unlocks and a couple of hands that obliterated half the table, so you won’t struggle with this one. John’s (valid) complaint with the game is it’s rubbish if you know your way about, as the AI is too random to get a good fix on. I learned to play through pub games and the odd round of Poker For Dummies on the laptop which is also a not-very-good poker game for the same reasons – it plays reasonably sharp limit games but as soon as you unlock no-limit games it goes berserk.
report
I don’t really have a problem with Max and Strong Bad being poor players. They’re Max and Strong Bad. (I do have a problem with Strong Bad being incredibly grating and unfunny, but this wasn’t addressed.) As it is, Tycho is clearly the strongest player in the game, ridiculously cautious until it comes down to the one-on-one and then difficult to read and prone to large bluffs just when you’re used to seeing him fold three out of every four hands. He’s tricky to read, but clearly not random.
report
Well here is where subjectivity is at its strongest – I found Strong Bad very funny in this game, frequently laughing at his lines.
report
I agree with the motion to ignore John Walker. Sad…
report
I’m starting a motion to stop acting like entitled jerks.
report
I think Poker Night did what it set out to do, which is allow you to play poker with the four characters in question. I also agree that they don’t play very good poker, but they seem to play about as I would expect. Max is random, Strong Bad will bluff on anything, Heavy, once he gets an idea in his head, hangs onto it tenaciously, and Tycho actually has some clue how to play poker.
It’s not a good general Hold’Em simulator because it’s not even trying in the first place, IMO.
report
Man RPS has really gone downhill.
The comment thread, I mean. The writing’s spot-on as usual.
report
You’re helping.
report
I never claimed to be.
report
Alright…I don’t want to but…
how can John take whether you enjoyed the game or not into account during his review. No seriously, how? Tell me. Tell John.
“You’re right, of course. We should put player enjoyment in a vacuum, except when the reviewer fails to enjoy a game, in which case it’s incredibly important.”
I mean, seriously – is this 4chan? Where am I? I must have missed the part where reviewers have to consider every single possible reaction they can have to a game, and also the part where that’s what people want to read. When I went to read John Walker’s review, what I really wanted, but didn’t know, was a rundown of everyone else’s reaction to the game.
They made a deck that you can’t even see. If that’s not worthwhile to mention in a review…I don’t even know how to finish that sentence.
report
I’m pretty sure the post you quoted was said sarcastically.
Of course a reviewer can’t know other people’s reaction from a game. He may be able to predict some of it if he believes the seeds are there, but at most all he could say is that some people may enjoy it, though it’s obvious that’s an expendable side note.
And to be fair, while the design on that particular deck is incredibly stupid, the use of the deck is entirely optional.
report
“Which makes it an awful lot like playing absolute beginners at poker. If you’re a reasonably experienced player, you’ll know the horror of a first-timer joining your game. Because, as strange as it seems, it makes the game so much harder to play, and equally to enjoy.”
Are you saying an experienced player wouldn’t like to play with complete beginners? Wat? Obviously it has nothing to do with this game since you don’t bet any real monetary value here (and thus it can’t really be called poker), but that’s a pretty silly statement. Yes, metagame between actual good opponents is fun and all, but only beginners say beginners make the game harder to beat because they’re “random” or whatnot. Everybody has patterns.
report
They’re easy to take money off, but annoying to have at your table.
report
Bah, apparently if you edit the same post often enough it triggers the spambot’s wrath.
Anyway, it’s funny to see that Max and Strong Bad often come out on top of the campaigns considering that Max is highly erratic (I saw him throw away three of a kind jacks for no good reason whatsoever) and Strong Bad is supposedly the newbie. Tycho acts more like you’d expect, a reasonable player who may pull the occasional ludicrous bluff if he thinks he can get away with it, but he’s usually wiped out. Poker strategy aside, it seems the luck of the draw is rules the table.
report
drewski: That makes no sense.
report
Consider a first person shooter multiplayer against a n00b – someone who just stands in your sights and shoots at you until he’s dead. You’re jumping around, strafing, throwing grenades, using cover – he just finds you and stands in one spot until he dies (or, occasionally, you die because he catches you low on health or he found a rocket launcher or whatever).
You get your kills and you get the win, but it’s not really satisfying. Part of the fun of poker is *playing poker* – if you just want to take some kid’s money, punch him in the face and take his wallet.
report
That’s a real shame. Obviously expecting a good poker game here would be a bit outlandish, but expecting an adequate one was reasonable, it sounds like you’d be better off playing one of those old Apple IIe card games. I’m also not surprised that the dialogue runs out quickly, but I’d have wagered a bit longer than the 20 minutes mentioned here. It’s cheap, but a cheap bad game is still a bad game. Thanks for the honest appraisal, John.
report
The interesting thing is, the telltale guys mentioned over at Giant Bomb that it featured the most dialogue of any game they’d made.
Also that there were more lawyers working on the project than developers. (I still enjoyed it!)
report
Actually, I think the problem is less the amount of dialogue and more the fact that they really REALLY like to repeat themselves. There is plenty of stuff I only heard once, as well as one I never heard the entire dialogue, and I suspect there are others I’ve never heard.
report
This review sounded like it was pointing out the problems of poker more than the actual Telltale game. After all, poker IS a lottery, it is just based on luck. Skill only comes into play when you know your opponents and whatnot. It can still be fun, but from a game design point of view, poker sucks man.
report
I’m curious how you believe professional poker players make a living.
report
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I presume that professional players do a lot of research into their opponents before they play them?
From my experience, being good at poker requires knowing the %s and how likely it is that you have the best hand. Which, thinking about it makes me wonder why it’s so hard to program AI to play it.
Don’t get me wrong, I know poker is fun, just that I don’t think it’s well designed as a game, otherwise it would be fun without money.
report
As has been mentioned several times, luck does play a part of it, but the part that people forget is that you can win with a mathematically worse hand just by betting over the top.
For example, I played once and folded except at least one picture card suited, otherwise I bet something stupid like 10 times the blinds. Eventually people caleld me, realised I wasn’t bluffing, and stayed out of my way whenever I bet big. So I occasionally did so with absolute rubbish. People were too scared to call me because as far as they were concerned, I had a powerful hand behind me.
On the subject of poker AI, sometimes you want it to fold, even when it has a golden hand. If I always come in with top pairs, and the flop is something like QKA, you probably don’t want to call me if I raise. Here, it won’t remember that I’ve only played top pairs or similar, so the tactic of bleeding them is harder.
report
@DrGonzo: You need money for poker because that’s what hooks into the psyche of the player, and the point of poker is that what you see is only half of the game, the other half is in the brains of the players. If you take out the money you’re left with half a game, and that half is not very good on its own. Reasonably enough.
report
I think John’s given a fair take of the game, but I can’t shake the feeling that he’s missed it on this one.
In thirty years, we’ll look at this game as hopelessly primitive, just as Apple ][ Flight Simulator looks primitive to us. But look for a minute at what John’s criticizing:
A. Conversations that are repetitive. Yes, I agree. The repeating started in about 30 minutes (although the right-mouse button helps a lot), but I was still getting interesting, and sometimes hilarious banter several hours in. The Heavy’s story about the Engineer’s wrench: gold.
B. Non-intuitive poker play. I have to say, on Normal, the players played like I thought they would (which could very well equal confirmation bias writing the narrative for me): Max was wild, the Heavy was aggressive and Tycho played tight. On Hard (or difficult, or whatever it’s called), the differences weren’t there. I could chase people off of bets, and I could find people bluffing from time to time. Regardless, they’re just not human.
C. Inappropriate comments. Most of the time, Tycho makes observations about playing bad cards that make sense in the context, but not always. Most of the time, when the Heavy complains about “baby bets”, the bets are small. And please, Tycho, one time is enough for that stupid Czech joke.
Good grief, these are exactly the points on which an AI is going to show its weak points. As for the bugs, okay, I think I had that thing running nearly ten hours (I had trouble sleeping. Don’t judge me), and I lost one hand due to a non-continuable situation. I’d say I noted ten minor bugs to boot.
So it does not following the official tournament betting rules of Texas Hold’em: those are still in the house rules. In truth, Seven Card Stud would have worked better in the comic context, but, no doubt, its relatively lack of popularity is a hindrance.
On the other hand, the animation and the direction are world-class, and the music’s good too.
The point? In spite of its weaknesses, Poker Night tries to create a dynamic experience, melding canned (dialogue/banter) and emergent (poker) elements. It succeeds in some ways, and fails in others. But it’s cheap and worth checking out just to see how the designers bring a (poker-)structured dialogue alive.
The last PC poker game I played was Amiga Strip poker, on Prom Night. They advertised that game as featuring three potential opponents, one of whom was “Completely Inept”. Playing five-card draw, I saw all of them pixel-nekkid, but I never figured out which one couldn’t play poker. Poker Night is a far better game.
report
THIS is how you disagree with a review.
report
I pre purchased the game and i think John is not giving the poker AI enough credit. Its simple, fun and funny.
Well worth the pocket change needed to buy.
report
“But sadly, as funny as a lot of the lines definitely are, it doesn’t last, and it doesn’t have a workable poker game underneath it to make it worthwhile.”
There’s always the TF2 items though. If only more shit games sold TF2 items.
Maybe Valve should implement an item store in TF2?
report
I mainly agree with the review and I’m having fun with the game still. so everything is fine for me. Best bug I encountered: After folding after the flop I watched the game until the turn when I clicked on the “Next Hand” button. Announcer: “The player has won the hand!”. WTF? And I even got the chips… :D
report
tbh at £3 it’s worth it for the half hour’s amusing banter alone :)
report
I have mentioned this on me twitter, and I suppose a lot of people will be angry with it, but:
I have now won three of the four items you can get from the game.
I have no idea how to play poker.
I thought I was getting the hang of it with this game, but from reading the complaints it seems I have simply picked up the bad habits of the ai players. I will play any hand I have, no matter what, to see if the others will fold. They usually do, and if not I think my stats back me up at around 50% win loss rate.
End result, I am still a terrible player, I do not know what a full house or a straight is, though I have achievements for winning with them, and I think I won’t bother with the game anymore if I win the final item from Tycho. Who really is a douche in the game, it has to be said. He told me off for winning a hand, then congratulated me for it. Bug? Maybe. Still irritating.
EDIT: Just won the watch. And seen all the banter, I reckon. If only this had been integrated into an interesting verion of the X Box Game Room.
report
What? No news about Telltale’s own Back to the Future game? They’ve just released in-game screenshots!
Back to this game… If only they could play Pazaak and Guybrush was present here…
report
I just limped to the flop as often as possible. You can get away with it easily: it’s fairly uncommon for any of the characters to bet significant money pre-flop, especially on normal difficulty. It was pretty much “fold complete shit, call anything semi-decent, modestly raise on anything good.”
To be honest, I’m not the biggest world-class poker expert and all, but other than the insane looseness of the table (which is understandable in a game where you don’t want to hear “fold fold fold” spoken twenty or so ways in hand after hand after hand), the AI doesn’t seem -that- wretched. I may just suck, though. It took me like a whole 3-4 hours to get the four TF2 unlocks on Normal difficulty.
report
I’m a total poker novice, and (repetitions of conversations aside) I’ve really quite enjoyed my 2 or 3 hours in the game so far.
Apart from some obvious graphical or audio bugs, I couldn’t really tell you anything about the strengths or weaknesses in the gameplay or the AI. I can only really subjectively comment on the humor (Tycho is annoying me). John’s tone might come across as a bit harsh to someone in my position, but its fairly obvious that he knows enough about poker to see the flaws in the gameplay where I can’t.
Its actually good to know that I should probably go elsewhere if I want to continue to learn.
Oh and two questions:
- What do river and flop mean?
- Is there somewhere I can specifically play poker against my friends (and them only) over the net? I get the impression I’d learn more from playing with them than I will against crazy AI.
report
The flop is when the three community cards are dealt, the river is the fifth card to be played.
I’ve had some good games with friends on the Facebook poker thing if you’re looking for casual games, though there are probably better.
report
In Texas Hold ‘Em each player is given two cards (the “hole cards”) and then five “community cards” are put down on the table. The aim is to form the best five card hand from the seven – your two and the five shared ones.
The first three community cards are called the “flop”. Then the fourth is the “turn” card, and the fifth is the “river”.
report
Ah, thank you, most helpful.
As for facebook…*shudders* Can’t stand the place, bad enough that I have to go there to keep tabs on certain folk (that sounded more stalker-ish than intended). Anywhere else?
Its actually a shame that there isn’t any multiplayer in Inventory. I know it’d probably have to be either single player with bots OR just players, as mixing between the two would likely be messy with the conversations, but it would have made the game a lot more worthwhile and probably worth playing in the long term. I suppose, for £3, that’s not really what they were going for though.
What a shame.
report
I figure I might as well repost this as a new comment…
If a beginner to poker is reading this review, something should click in their head when they realize that Walker is an experienced player… I don’t think he should be required to openly admit something like, “I am an experience poker player which means my perspective on this game may be very different than the perspective of a beginner, so when you’re reading about the different aspects of this game throughout my review, take that into consideration if you seriously consider buying this game.”
That should be implied when using any critical thought process to think of how reviews and opinions work.
And his criticism of the game seems undisputed – those of you who criticize him for taking the review/game too seriously are simply criticizing his personal opinion, and like I said, he shouldn’t have to hold your hand and explain to you that he’s not God and does not have some objective stance to make a satisfying review for everyone. And I don’t think that’s what he was intending to do, and I don’t think that’s what reviewers should try to do.
report
Hey John, I was wondering what you thought of the poker in Red Dead Redemption?
They’ll do stupid AI things on occasion, but there’s a certain feeling of accomplishment when you call out a bluff of ace high when playing cards with computer-generated characters.
report
I’ve yet to play it. It’s one of the games I hope to play over my Christmas break.
report
I’m here to chant with the angry mob, get your torches burn the poor reviewerist! :P hehe, looks like you’ve got a bit of a handful with this WIT. I’ll not jump in as well (as I do not care too much for poker, I rather set up a gauntlet on ArmA 2 and see if I can make it to the other side XD)
–Just think every one needs to relax a bit
report
This is a subjective review. John knows how to play poker, and if you treat it as a serious poker game, you’ll probably be disappointed. Telltale tell us there *are* tells and ways to see if a player is bluffing, and Max (in particular)’s habit of trebling the pot on a bluff is annoying, but I think the thing people actually end up hating about the game is this:
The dialogue random number generator needs a wrench applied.
If this were just a game of poker we don’t take seriously, that would be fine, but the fact you end up only playing to hear the random dialogue you haven’t yet (because when its new, it’s funny) means that the repeating nature of it gets old.
I think the game would be measurably improved by a button that says “don’t repeat any dialogue in three games”. Better still, an invisible button. That’s been pressed already.
In each thread I’ve seen bashing the game (on a few forums, here, other Sources of Truth) there are a lot of people who get the same line over and over, and it’s never the same line. For someone above it was the “czech” line – which I’ve heard once, and loved – for John it was Strongbad & Heavy Boxing. For me it’s Max, Superball and Scrabble.
report
I have seen some visible tells, but they seem quite rare, and seem to be interrupted if a “conversation” dialogue is playing. If the Heavy smirks, you generally know that he’s actually got a good hand and not just throwing chips around, and to fold that shit like a freshly laundered bedsheet. StrongBad generally starts goading even more than usual (hard to notice) if he gets into a betting war with a strong hand, Tycho will turn to the side and smirk between turns if he’s holding pocket aces. I routinely put Max out in the first few hands, so haven’t seen much for him beyond him fidgeting with his chips.
report
This game is awesome, a great Poker game and REALLY funny lines, i think the reviewer is a Poker adict that never saw a Penny arcade comic, never played TF2 or anything.
report
I’ll agree that the homestar deck is idiotically designed, and certain characters will regularly bet such random crap with such crap that I can’t tell if they’ve actually got something worth a damn or are just ‘Being Max.’ It seems Max and Strongbad are intentionally set up to bet like complete morons, while Tycho’s a bit more prudent, with Heavy falling somewhere in between.
However, I disagree on the dialog entirely, yes, it loses the charm, but it never becomes annoying to me, and they recorded enough of it that I’ve sunk 40-some odd hours into it and I’m still hearing new lines from time to time, and some of the banter is funny even on the repeat. I’ll admit that the actual poker related dialog gets really repetitive, though.
I won’t say anything about how it compares to actual poker rules, as I am a rare player, and I never played Texas Hold ‘Em outside of this game. However, I disagree with anyone who implies it’s simply for the TF2 items. I won them all rather quickly, and yet I continue to play for the in-game unlocks and dialog.
The price can’t be emphasized enough. For less than 5 US dollars, cheaper than a movie ticket, you can get hours of entertainment and dialog. The game was worth it before they even announced the TF2 unlocks. With the unlocks, it’s practically a steal for a TF2 player.
report
Heck, there’s even dialog referencing the fact that Max and Strongbad are actually just flat out bad at the game.
report
I can’t believe that a videogame starring a menagerie of cartoon characters would be anything less than the most accurate simulation of poker ever devised. Here I was ready to hand my firstborn child over to TTG to sacrifice to whatever deity they bribed for the electronic poker equivalent of Jesus Christ until you delivered me from the jaws of tragedy. My heart, my wallet, and my unborn children thank you, John.
Do you do premonitions as well? I’m curious as to whether or not their new “Back to the Future” game will try to rape me and everyone I care about.
report
This review is so full of butthurt. I can’t believe what a whiny ass hat this guy is. IT WAS FIVE DOLLARS.
report
Bang bang, agreed.
report
Yes, it’s a cheap game, but that’s irrelevant if it isn’t fun. Buying this isn’t just a waste of $5 dollars, it’s also a waste of time that could be spent playing something better. Considering the current sale on Steam it isn’t hard to find a better way to spend your time at the same price.
report
@Unheard Of
Yeah, but the thing is, Poker Night is awesome, it isn’t the bollocks it’s made out to be.
report
:shrug: I’ve played it and come to the opposite opinion. It wasn’t the worst game of poker I’ve ever had, but it isn’t something I’ll be returning to. The worst poker game ever involved a friend’s whiny, insecure gf who didn’t understand the game and took every bet against her as a personal attack.
report
@Unheard Of
Kay, that made me laugh =P
I’ll agree to disagree.
report
You should have agreed to disagree from the very start, with John’s review. It’s what *he* thinks, afterall.
report
“Tycho” from Penny Arcade doesn’t seem to read much RPS. His comment on the release of the game (quoting from pennyarcade.com):
“Poker Night At The Inventory is out, and I’ve read some really nice things about it sur le web. I wrote a few lines, but mostly looked after tone, which they seemed to have a strong handle on already. I snuck a few lines in for other characters as well, because when am I gonna have an opportunity like that again? Fun project, though. A+++, would work with again, etc.”
Also: All hear, all hear. Ye Trollse striketh at RPS again.
report
I just wanted to submit a bit of a different perspective. I kinda felt that this wasn’t supposed to be a game vs experienced players of poker, and more “lets play vs these people”
I feel the betting is more about the fact that they are trying to represent a playing style in line with the character personalities.
Tycho thinks the most of of the lot, he’ll fold bad hands outright most of the time and he won’t raise you unless he has something. (yes he doesn’t always, but way more then everyone else)
Max’s betting is insane, much like max…. who is insane. In fact max often gleefully comments on how much he loves financial recklessness.
Strongbad likes to try to push people around with money, especially if they seem weaker then him. If you check against him he’ll almost always raise you several thousand by the end of the hand. This strikes me as a very Strongbad thing to do.
The Heavy tends to be a bit more methodical and slow. You can depend on him checking in the first round of betting unless his hole cards are obviously good. I say obvious because he also seem a bit dumb, which uh… sorry heavy… but that makes sense too >_>
I’m not saying this is a Good Poker Game, but it is a pretty good stab at what would happen if you got these guys together and said “hey lets all play poker, even if it’s a game we’re not wildly familiar with” In fact I think several dialog bits remark on the players relative (in)experience levels, from Strong bad (who is a newbie) to Tycho, who “actually knows the rules” but isn’t a card sharp or anything, he’s a gamer working of basic probabilities. Much like most gamers in line to get this game.
I’d say it’s worth its a game for the characters rather then for the game. If you like the characters more then the game, get it. If you like the game more then the characters, stay away it’ll only frustrate you.
(I will say, that once it gets to 1v1 whoever your playing gets extra dumb, probably to keep you from having to play 1v1 for 40 minutes, but yeah….)
report
I really like the game but I can understand John’s objections and don’t fault him for viewing the game in such a negative light. I know nothing about poker so the problems of AI were beyond me, although the weakness of the writing outside the heavy is quite clear.
report
This review is far to harsh for the game and it’s directed audience. While the author may be particularly experienced in playing poker, most of the people that will buy and play this game are probably not. Most of the comments seem to be reflective of an audience that has little to no experience playing hold’em and this game is great for teaching someone the basics and as well as learning to read players (as best as a simulator could do) as well as learning the probabilities behind certain hands (without being fed them like on TV) It’s great practice for someone learning the game and for the price of a starbucks drink, the value/cost is well worth it. I think it’s particularly interesting that the author complains about the lack of bluffing but then also complains about betting high on a relatively bad hand. If you play through one or two tournaments, you learn that the characters each have personalities ranging from the more risky, tend to bluff more (on the left of the table) to the very conservative (on the right of the table). I.E. Tycho almost never bluffs you but occ. does and pisses you off when he does; with Max, 50% of his hands are bluffs but if you call him on it 50% of the time he beats you with something like a pocket pair that went trip on the flop. Kinda teaches you to read into personalities too which is important when playing against real players. To give the author some credit, it doesn’t beat playing real people but it’s the best poker sim I’ve played and well worth the price. And if you absolutely hate the game, you spent $5 on some Tf2 items, no big.
report
I understood very very little of this review. Please understand that the majority of people who’d want to play this are probably fans of adventure games, and Team Fortress 2.
I bought the game, it’s an absolute laugh. I’ve no idea how to play poker – but the game is fun. I’ve gotten my 5bucks worth already.
Rockpapershotgun please get a video game journalist to review your games in future, so that we can understand the review.
report
John’s not a video game journalist now?
But really, while John might not have put a lot of consideration towards the game’s intended audience of complete beginners, I would at least expect a poker game to know the rules of poker.
I don’t mean the AI “players”, I mean the game. Based on the review, it seems like the developers themselves honestly didn’t know some of the rules of poker and tournament betting… Which, no matter what way you spin it, is going to result in an objectively poor poker game.
report
Games journalist reviews a poker game on the basis of its poker.
You might have got your money out of it as a novice (as did I) but you can’t expect John to suddenly forget how to play poker to review the game. The whole fact that we can’t understand the review should maybe clue you in to the fact that we are too inexperienced in Poker to know any better.
Its a shallow game based on (apparently) wobbly poker, repetitive and subjectively funny humour and the prospect of TF2 items. That’s going to be enough for some people, especially at the price, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be reviewed properly.
report
I’d suggest people are only getting annoyed with the negativity in this WiT because the game has some popular and much loved characters from other games and\or mediums. The poker contained within really isn’t relevant to them, not compared to the slightly-interactive animated short that they’ve purchased for very little money.
report
There’s a LOT more then twenty minutes of “banter” in this game, and for $5 you get your money’s worth.
I’ve played for a few hours and will play until I unlock everything, and there are *still* conversations that I haven’t heard before. Yes, some of the comments are repetitive, but my God, a couple of the conversations brought tears to my eyes because of laughing so hard. The Heavy’s story about getting revenge on an engineer that was in his base is so funny I had to get up from my chair, and the reactions of everyone else at the table was priceless.
Replay value is minimal once everything is unlocked, but again, we’re talking $5 here, not a slightly-used, overpriced IPAD. /shrug
report
I see no problem in them repeating the dialogue. Unlike John I enjoy hearing something I find funny repeatedly. Heck I’ll replay a clip five times in a row if I’m especially fond of it, in this game’s case I played a clip of Strong Bad and Heavy’s Spy conversation.
As for the Poker what you see as a problem I see as perfect. This isn’t a game for Poker fans. It’s a game for Team Fortress 2, Homestar Runner, Penny Arcade and Sam & Max fans using Poker as the format. I know nothing about how to play Poker but I have a lot of fun playing this game. To me this is the only Poker game worth playing.
report
I just finished unlocking the last deck and I can definitely confirm that there are more conversations added as you “progress” and “unlock” the decks and tables, which makes sense.
I’m not going to spoil it anymore then I already have, but if you want to hear them all, play until all the decks are unlocked. By that time the last table will be unlocked as well.
I’ll just leave saying this much: The last unlocked table is very cool. You won’t be disappointed (at least I don’t think anyone will . . .). =)
report
This sounds promising.
report
I’ve played it quite a bit and not had much of a problem with lines repeating, and you allude to a few in your review that are unfamiliar to me. So either I’ve got a bad memory or I’m very lucky. Either way, it’s got enough of these characters going back and forth that I consider it $5 well spent.
(what is a blind)
report
I pretty much agree with this whole Wot I Think. I’ve played the game for 68 minutes and I’ve already heard the same boring jokes over and over. AI is pretty easy to figure out, they’re just playing dumb.
report
The only reason this game exists is to get TF2 items for less than the Mann Co. Store. That’s all I play it for.
report
Hmmm. I really enjoyed this game, and at a measly fiver, worth every cent. I am, however, a massive Penny Arcade / Sam & Max fan, as well as being as Valve fanboy as every PC gamer is nowadays… so maybe my viewpoint doesn’t count.
When I reviewed this game, I totally dismissed every poker element and instead decided to review this based on what it genuinely brings to the table – some of the funniest, wittiest, and smartest dialogue ever to grace a videogame. For that, it’s more than worth the price.
report
I had an odd bug. Max and Strongbad, as well as myself, as the last players in. Eliminated Max, said he was off to do whatever, and instead just sat at the table, during the entire showdown with Strongbad, even engaging in chit-chat dialogue with him.
Regardless, it’s a decent game for the price paid. There are worse games/DLCs you could buy.
report
I gotta admit i gave up reading that review half way through because I had no idea what it was talking about. Way too much poker language which is like latin to me.
I thought this was a casual comedy game where half the characters bet randomly and the other half are stupid?
report
The game is alright. I ain’t that good at poker and I played like 3 hours or so. It was fun at first, after the voice lines started repeating themselves… Not so much. Still bearable. Accidentally got most of the TF2 unlocks, which was nice. The one that I actually had to work for was the Iron Curtain. I just kept going all-in, all the time and when Hoovy called it I got lucky. Seriously, going all-in is the best strategy it seems… I’d say if you play TF2 and you know at least 1 other character you’ll have some fun for a while, and since it’s so cheap why the hell not?
report
Talking of bugs, I’ve had Strong Bad’s shovel stuck in the middle of the screen when I was right clicking to hurry them up…
report
I can somewhat agree but when you said the betting was borked about the raising limits you forgot the game is “No limit hold ‘em”
So low raises are allowed
report
First, I think I must have somehow gotten a different version of the game. I mean, no graphical glitches, no lag, no incorrect declarations of the winning hand.
Also, the players all have different styles – Tycho is really cautious and folds if he has crap, and pretty much only goes all-in if he has the best possible hand. The Heavy is pretty balanced, I’d say 50% to 66% of my showdowns are with him. Strong Bad is aggressive, and Max is pure insanity. I mean folding with a full house on the flop one time, going all in with a crappy high card on another hand insanity. Maybe he isnt joking when he says he didnt even look at his cards.
Is anyone else having this experience, with the characters having styles, rather than being random?
report
there is a fucking difficulty settings for when it get to easy on normal …..
report
Tycho and Max were lagging I guess, review is so harsh.
I wouldn’t call them bad characters, each had their moments; I personally loved Tycho’s interactions with the entire cast.
Creeping Max out with talk of animal romance, Arguing with Strong Bad over web traffic and finding out more about the Heavy’s background.
I honestly have no clue about Max, but he fit in great and contributed to the Eccentric atmosphere. I know alot of his lines were references but like Tycho’s supporting line “Oh, used game re-sellers? Yeah, we got those.” Or max’s own “Bet everytime my belly button itches”, he did fine
I only wish they interacted with the player more. When it boiled down to 1v1 not much went on.
Dialouge repeats early but it’s normally always amusing, and through playthroughs I still normally find a few new things.
Me personally, I’ve never played poker. Very accessible for me. & For $5 you can’t really argue.
In the end the flaws are still there but the review comes off as really, really harsh on the poor thing
report
poopy faggot hole
report
I’m just worried that everyone will start labeling people using the poker unlocks as “Fools” and what not, same as they use to with Mac users playing Tf2.
report
Boring.
report
I said this on steam, and I will say it again, I recommend this game for what it could turn into, not what it is. I’m sure more characters by both Telltale and the players will be added eventually, the celebrity poker engine is very flexible.
report
Know what this review and many of the comments sound like to me? It sounds like the same sort of crap you hear from skilled fighting game players who deign to play a button mashing noob one day and then still manage to get beaten by them. Then they whine all over the Internet about how unfair it is that such a thing is possible, the game is broken, yadda yadda yadda. Except, you know, the poker in this game isn’t actually as bad as the article and many of the comments make it out to be. That’s “wot I think.”
report
(Although I’ve not heard any reference to the failure of the Penny Arcade games, which is a tad elephantine.)
Well, that would be because the Penny Arcade games were not developed by Telltale, and, as such, it would be rather unpolite to comment on its failure.
report
Bashing a 5 dollar poker game is like bashing the dollar menu at mcdonalds. Seriously what were you expecting for 5 dollars? You’re part of the problem with gaming these days.
First off its a poker game….
It has characters that interact with each other
It was 5 dollars. Take 5 dollars to an actual arcade and see how long you are entertained with 20 tokens or quarters.
I don’t care for poker or mcdonalds for that matter but to have computerized opponents that interact with each other for only 5 bucks. You can’t buy a handheld hold em game like that from walmart at that price.
report
Wot I think:
I don’t know how to play poker. These guys say funny things. I played it for about an hour. I wonder if I can win all those TF2 items. I’m not sure why I bought this, but it was only $4.50.
report
Sounds like they should have just made a kind of Machinima(?) episode about 20-30 minutes long instead.
Not everything is worth being “interactive”.
report
I agree with most of your review but still felt it was worth the $4.49(pre ordered) simply for the TF2 unlocks. With that said I would have purchased it even without the unlocks just to hear the in game banter.
I am an avid poker player and obviously this isn’t pokerstars but it could be better. I still enjoy playing it though.
I am glad that Telltale is already working on an update to fix the side pots bug etc.
report
I’m not sure…
I mean this is a great game…..
All I just want is a poker night……
I’m not sure about the re-raise..
I know how to play but…
It said no limit Texas Hold ‘em…
Which I have no idea with…
But I was wondering to myself…
What is the rules of the Texas Hold ‘em where there is a limit….
Can somebody help me…
report
Poker with a limit means there is a limit per bet, or per raise. It just stops the rich guys from completely intimidating the poor guys simply with betting power. “I’ll bet $5000 because I can easily afford it because I have $20000 and you have only $6000.”
Having no limit allows such intimidation. I do it myself in this game. If you bet such that a player as only $300 left if they call, they may as well go all in, and that will sometimes intimidate them into either folding, or going all in.
report
“I am an advanced poker player, let me throw jargon at you to show how much better I am.” – was the feeling I got from the review. It bored me more than hearing the same lines over and over again in the game itself. In fact hearing them over and over again is more enjoyable than reading someone bash a game just because it isn’t advanced enough.
report
Thank you for doing such a thorough review, as I don’t have a very firm grasp of the rules of poker myself. It seems like the game makes a lot more mistakes than I expected it to, even though I’ve played a few rounds myself without seeing any obvious mistakes.
It’s too bad this game wasn’t playtested and checked according to the real rules or real behaviour. That could have made so much more of a difference. All I can hope is that Telltale will release a 1.1 which will fix most of this (and hopefully add some more dialogue).
report
Five dollars for a hat, two miscs., and two reskins? Sounds like I’m learning how to play poker
report
Yes, they do bet stupid. Why would someone raise the bet when their only opponent is all in? Why would they raise, and then fold when you re-raise. You get to know their personalities and it becomes easier than real poker, where a human would realize that you’re on to them and playing that. They will sometimes go all in with a queen and a three, before the flop!… wtf? Yes, I have played poker with humans that do that, but they usually smarten up on the second or third game.
Another point: playing poker with a newbie or completely insane person who’s entirely unpredictable is just a test of your skills. It’s poker. That’s poker. That IS what poker’s all about. People who whine about crazy players are just complaining that they don’t get to win consistently against rubes who are predictable and not as good as them. Makes me think of the old British style of armed combat: stand still at attention, then ready, aim, fire. They dropped that pretty fast when they realized that the other team wasn’t quite behaving in a dignified fashion. Being crazy isn’t against the rules; live with it. If you’re good, you’ll win! Enjoy the challenge.
BUT! I have to say I easily got my money’s worth from this game. I enjoyed the characters very much. “You mean besides punching your groin face in the face groin?” Hahaha! I love Strongbad. Yes it repeats, but eventually moves on to new material. I wonder when I will have heard it all? Yes, the game has all of these criticisms, but yes, it is definitely worth the money in the same breath.
I’m a happy customer.
report
Extremely and unnecessarily harsh review. The problems you report with disappearing cards and regular huge pre-flop bets didn’t happen to me at all. The AI isn’t great, but as others have said, the way the characters play fits their personality pretty well. I was always happier to call a Max raise than one from Tycho. Tycho’s pretty tight. I’ve won ten tournaments now and don’t recall him raising with rubbish ever. The dialogue is fairly limited, but I was still getting new stuff after 20+ games. You can hardly expect them to record much more than that for the price.
True, there are some minor errors with the conversations – Tycho often grins like he’s won when he hasn’t, and looks at the player when he appears to be addressing someone else. There are problems with the AI too, all the players make some strange folds, so regular min-raising is the way to go.
But really, £3 is excellent value, despite the rough edges.
John Walker (and hence RPS) –
report
Well I think of the AI like this. Max, Strong Bad, the Heavy, and Tyhco aren’t professionals. After all, they just do this on their free time.
report
I completely disagree with this, I enjoy lining up a load of beers and spending 3 or 4 hours playing poker with some real characters. The little intro adds so much ambience and credibility to the game. I’m looking forward to see what’s coming next for The Inventory.
report
I won’t bother justifying why this review is 100% correct but please know that it is.
Good review John Walker.
report
I couldn’t help but bust a rib laughing when i managed to win a game AND Tycho’s watch by doing absolutely nothing but going all-in ALL the time. I wasn’t expecting to win, figured i’d do it for shits and giggles. ‘Lo and behold, profit!
report