Wot I Think: Poker Night 2

Ever wanted to play poker with Claptrap, Sam & Max, Brock from The Venture Bros. and Ash from The Evil Dead, with GLaDOS as your dealer? It’s at the least an interesting prospect. But how does it pan out as a game? Telltale found out with Poker Night 2. Here’s wot I think:

I think the most important information to convey about Telltale’s sequel to their dreadful Poker Night At The Inventory is that I don’t hate it. Is it a good poker game? No, not at all. Does it fix the key issues of the original? Only a few. Does it suffer any less from endless repetition? Good grief no. But it’s calmer, less offensively bad, and I think this time fits the mould of a £4 comedy game.

But know this: it’s not Bruce Campbell.

The concept is exactly the same: a back-room game of poker (Hold Em or Omaha this time), with four cartoon characters. Except, oddly, this time they’re not from gaming, which did seem rather the point. But it’s hard to be too disappointed – at first – with the collection. Yes, there’s Claptrap from Borderlands, but it’s a self-effacing role and well performed. There’s Sam, with Max in tow, and Telltale know how to write those two. Then it gets a bit odd, with Brock Samson (Patrick Warburton, doing the voice he does in things) from The Venture Brothers – the Cartoon Network cartoon and not a videogame to the best of my knowledge. And most peculiar of all, Ash from The Evil Dead trilogy. While there have been (terrible) Evil Dead games, it’s such an out-there inclusion, and one that makes total sense when you think: Yes! I’m playing poker with Bruce Campbell! You’re playing poker with, er, Danny Webber (and not the foot-to-baller). And then it’s all being hosted by GLaDOS.

There’s not a lot to describe about what you do. It’s poker, except with really bad AI players who will go all-in on the flop with two undercards, or fold at a small increase on their on monster raise. It’s not quite as ridiculous as last time, but you do still wonder if the people making it really get the game they’re emulating. Obviously you’re not going to assume a £4 comedy game is going to give you a cutting edge poker simulation, but the reality is that once you’ve heard all their lines the first time (about two hours of play, by my count) there’s little reason to keep going without it.

The biggest oddity here is the setup of the games. The buy-in is $20,000, but the opening blinds are $400 and $800, so it’s always a crapshoot from the very start. Just that single decision ensures there’s never any sense of actually playing a proper game of poker, with all-ins almost inevitable in the first two hands, and lunatic raises throughout. Why you can’t just have a tiny bit of control, the option to change the blind levels for yourself, feels strange. But then of course the game would reveal just how little dialogue there is in there all the more quickly.

That’s the obvious and unavoidable frustration when playing. The banter between the characters is mostly decent enough, but obviously jokes only work the first time you hear them, and slightly less well the fifty-seventh. There are two types: the barks they give when calling, raising, folding, etc, and the conversations they have with each other while playing. The two interrupt each other constantly, but it nicely picks up conversations where they left off, usually with an, “Anyway…” as they resume. And that works nicely – again, the first time you hear them.

The barks grow pretty infuriating, pretty quickly. I lost count how many times I heard Claptrap say “Don’t stare at the money, or it will think you’re a creep,” or Ash comment that the money could fix the Oldsmobile in the six or seven rounds I played. I smiled the first time. I grimaced for most. And Max falling off his chair in the background when I went all in made me laugh… once. Every other time I go all in, not so much. And worse, they slow down the game, and there’s no way to skip dialogue. So while what you want is to not hear the same deliberation line before taking their move for the twentieth time, what you do is sit helplessly, stabbing at random keyboard keys in case maybe tilde or something might skip it.

The repetition of the longer conversations is just a bit wearying, especially when they painstakingly resume themselves a bunch of times even though you remember it from twenty minutes ago. I can only imagine this would grow to very bothersome degrees if you played enough for these to reach their fourth or fifth rendition.

Another rather problematic issue is just how badly GLaDOS is written. It’s hard to say how much of it is Telltale’s failure to quite get the character, how much is that it’s impossibly unfair to try to equal Wolpaw and Pinkerton’s writing, but her falling-flat lines do add a rather disappointing atmosphere to proceedings. GLaDOS’s evil is pernicious, not overt, and her teasing is under-the-skin cruel, not mildly insulting. Having her butt in to criticise you for calling and not raising your opponent’s all-in is not only bemusing in context, but also just a bit weird when she’s saying if she were you she’d commit suicide by jumping off a building.

There’s certainly too much of a temptation to write for the character’s known catchphrases, throwing in references rather than focusing on original material that works in their individual contexts. Sam and Max are much better in this regard, presumably because Telltale feels confident enough with them after fifteen episodes to know what to do with them. But Ash’s endless references to the car reek of desperation. Let alone that all the lines are delivered through the uncanny aural valley of a decent but not-quite impression.

Sorry to go on about this, but really, why include a character from an iconic movie – so far removed from the context of the game – if you can’t book the guy who played him? Having Campbell camp up the lines would have been such a treat, rather than Webber’s oddly genteel approach – never more obviously not the real thing than when he so disappointingly mumbles “groovy”.

The chances are you’ll persist in playing Poker Night 2 for the TF2 and Borderlands 2 items, won by completing set challenges within games, and then winning a game when one is up for grabs. Although getting all of them would require hearing Sam say “Don’t be afraid of the chips, don’t be afraid of the chips” over eighty-nine billion times.

But for the first couple of hours, you can milk it for what it offers – an okay poker game albeit one that doesn’t reward decent play, and a bunch of mostly funny lines until the looping becomes too much. And at £4, well, that seems fair.


  1. LionsPhil says:

    Does it at least know the rules of poker this time?

    • John Walker says:

      Dare you to read the review : )

      • LionsPhil says:

        I seem to remember the first would outright misrecognize hands and their relative values, and didn’t see any commentary on if that’s fixed?

      • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

        How can you possibly expect someone to get the first post and read the article?

        • LionsPhil says:

          It’s Saturday.

          Seriously, did I miss this? I saw about poorly-chosen starting values, but now you’re making me wonder if I just derped straight over a paragraph.

          • RvLeshrac says:

            I don’t know why they can’t just answer the question.

            The sole problem with the game’s poker, as Walker sees it, is that the AI isn’t ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. That criticism breaks down, of course, if you’ve ever spent more than ten minutes at a real poker table (or even a virtual one, such as PokerStars or Full TIlt).

            Real players will push a small re-raise when they know they’ve lost, even when they know they should be piling a huge stack of chips on to bluff.

            Real players will raise and re-raise with garbage cards in an attempt to steal the pot.

            Real players will even, sometimes, misidentify the hand they’re holding.

            That’s why Poker is considered a game of *skill*, not just luck. The cards in your hand only truly matter if you have to display them.

            With regard to misidentifying hands, I don’t follow. Do you mean it would give you a three-of-a-kind instead of a full house? If so, I’ve seen that once, but it didn’t affect the outcome.

          • qwertyman52 says:

            I think he is trying to say (to RvLeshrac), is that, for my experience in the current game, is that you have one thing, but the game gives you a lower form. For example, I had a 4 of a kind of 5’s, but the game only recognized 3 of them and so I lost to a 3 of a kind of 8’s during an all in match of item challenge (omaha) . Another example for texas hold em, is the same general form, except I had a flush and it dropped to a king kicker

          • Veovis Muaddib says:

            qwertyman52, in Omaha you must play exactly three cards from the table and two from your hand, unlike in standard hold ’em where you may play any combination IIRC.

          • RvLeshrac says:

            Yeah, sounds like Omaha. I’m always thinking about using more cards from my hand than is possible.

          • P7uen says:


            Are you saying that Telltale’s simulation is so advanced that they’ve modelled the human condition and then fooled John with it?

            I think I probably agree with what you were trying to say though, poker is generally the only game I prefer to play online with actual people rather than single player.

  2. Rinox says:

    I for one don’t mind that the characters play silly-poker. It’s nice to see a game treating poker as an erh game, instead of the SERIOUS BUSINESS it’s become to so many people. If they played like ‘proper’ poker players we’d all be bored to death even quicker with the banter.

    It’s appropriately priced too for that.

    • Lacessit says:

      It’s a sport you know.

      • dE says:

        No. It’s a simple card game that lay dormant for a while.
        Until some gambling companies decided to throw so much money at it that even Riot of LoL Fame would feel the sting of envy. Basically overnight, you had movie celebrities in Poker Deathmatches, huge advertisement campaigns, the game again popping up in popular movies. It became so mystified and glorified that it became a cultural phenomenon of its own.
        It’s only sport in the sense that everything you throw enough money at, can be interpreted as some sport.

        • kimadactyl says:

          Last I checked popularity wasn’t a prerequisite for being a sport.

          Also your comment feels contradictory – you say that everything can be a sport if you throw money at it, say that poker has had money thrown at it and so resembles a sport. So isn’t that agreeing?

          • dE says:

            You missed the point of my comment.
            It’s not a sport. But outside parties try to make it look like one by the generous use of money, because… even more money. It’s a move to make Poker somehow not seem like gambling, so it’s more accepted in the public. This treatment can be done with almost everything. Doesn’t turn the things into sport, but enough advertisement will get people thinking it is.

          • Snakejuice says:

            Anything can become a sport as long as there is skill involved and people are competing against each other. Just because poker is (pulling numbers out of my ass here) 90% luck and only 10% skill does not disqualify it as a sport. Yes it’s gambling but gambling and sports are not mutually exclusive, or would you not call golf and pool/snooker (and other sports with a strong gambling culture) sports? How about backgammon?

          • nairyhipples says:

            One of the pre-requisites of being a ‘Sport’ is that competitors do not rely on any form of “luck” in which poker would fail due to the shuffled deck.

        • Bhazor says:

          It isn’t the big money pay outs that made it such srs bizness, its the chance for the modern man to pretend to be butch and daring in a world where most outlets for that are frowned upon. Or involve acts of war.

      • stupid_mcgee says:

        According to the International Olympic Committee, maybe, but not according to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “sport.”

      • DestroyYourEgo says:

        Lol- yeah, like NASCAR. You neither need cunning nor athleticism- just a face with no emotion and the buns of Baryshnikov for those really loooonnnnngggg games.

        And Fritos. Every great athlete needs a bag of Fritos by his side.

  3. Didero says:

    In the first game, there was an option to dial back the frequency of the banter. Is that in this game too? Because that might alleviate some of the frustration at the repetition.

    • CareerKnight says:

      Oddly no, also you could skip dialogue in the first one with a click of the mouse, not so anymore.

  4. Greekscouse says:

    So just to sup this up, what you’re saying is, the negatives are bad ai and repetitive dialogue, while on the flipside the positives are Bruce Campbell. I’ll have two copies please.

    • Nick says:


    • jon_hill987 says:

      You missed the fact it isn’t Bruce Campbell…

    • John Walker says:

      That’s the worst supping up of all.

    • Greekscouse says:

      Oh i though you meant it’s not Bruce Campbell as in the game isn’t good, why in the world would they put Ash in if they couldn’t get Bruce as the voice actor? Go easy on me i just woke up and i’m mindly retarded.

      • Dare_Wreck says:

        What? That makes as much sense as your original statement…

        • Kitsunin says:

          I uh…think that for him “It’s not Bruce Campbell” is like saying “It’s not perfect” and he didn’t take the line literally because the idea of including Ash without Campbell is completely imbecilic and unbelievable.

          • Greekscouse says:

            Yeah exactly. Of course if i had read the whole article i would have clearly seen the paragraph dedicated in bashing the decision to include Ash without Cambell. Anyway i apologise again for my ADD self, great review John, i’m going to become a hermit now.

      • DestroyYourEgo says:

        “Go easy on me i just woke up and i’m mindly retarded.”

        Not sure an early morning wake up call coulda helped any with that, either.

  5. Dana says:

    >There are two types
    I’d say there are three types. Because when you get down to 1on1 and rest is eliminated, they often talk directly about you.

  6. Stardog says:

    You mention the repetitive dialogue in every paragraph. Was that on purpose?

    • SumDewd says:

      Exactly! I hope that was ironic use of repetition, as well as the “it’s worth 4 quid” trope.

  7. Rikard Peterson says:

    As you point out, the inclusion of non-game characters does seem weird. Maybe Telltale is considering that IP for a new game series?

    Edit: I should add that I’m unfamiliar with both Ash and Brock, so I don’t know how likely that is.

  8. The Dark One says:

    I didn’t have a problem with GladOS’ dialog at all.

    • protowizard says:

      Yeah, her line questioning if you actually knew the rules of the game had me in stitches.

    • SumDewd says:

      Agreed. I’m not sure I’m aligned with the whole too-aggressive-for-passive-aggressive argument. Just seems elitist. GlaDOS is snarky, and being a back-room poker dealer gives her a much-needed outlet for that passion. It’s better than growing ever-more-insane in a secret underground research complex.

  9. MadTinkerer says:

    Well I’m enjoying myself. I think part of the problem John has is that the characters behave differently than professional players. They also behave differently to each other, like in the original.

    ” It’s poker, except with really bad AI players who will go all-in on the flop with two undercards, or fold at a small increase on their on monster raise.”

    And which specific characters did that? Perhaps there’s a pattern to their behavior and if you’re seeing the pattern too easily you need to raise the difficulty? The default difficulty assumes you don’t even know the rules at the beginning. It’s perfect for novices.

    Regarding the dialogue, like the first game, you can turn down or turn off the banter. Also a non-issue.

    As for the writing, and Ash’s character in particular… Yeah. Usually amusing, occasionally grating, with some characters’ lines still sometimes implying incorrect information (but I think it’s usually the wrong line of dialogue being referenced rather than the AI itself not understanding what’s happening).

    Anyway, take it from a casual poker player and fan of the original (on all difficulty settings) that if you did like the first one you’ll probably like this as well in spite of it’s flaws.

    • Jelly Croissant says:

      Where’s the meter to change banter? I can’t find it.

      • SumDewd says:

        Can’t find it either… the whole ‘gameplay’ category under Settings has a single, glaring link; “HOW TO PLAY” This link only takes you through the pedestrian (yet entertaining) step-by-step rules of playing Hold ‘Em poker… again. The first time you play the game, these rules are displayed as a matter of course.

        So… again, where is the banter control?

        • DestroyYourEgo says:

          It’s such a “non issue” that the person claiming you can do isn’t even going to come back to tell you how to do it.

          You should just know!


  10. nemryn says:

    Are the cards delivered to the table by Aperture Science Recreation Device Conveyance Tubes?

    • SumDewd says:

      I believe they are delivered with Aperture Science Leisure Time Item Conveyance Panels, IIRC… which I probably don’t, according to GlaDOS.

  11. Xander77 says:

    It’s distractingly obvious that the characters come from entirely different animation styles. The first game at least made them look moderately similar.

    • John Walker says:

      But that’s the point! It’s meant to be each in their own distinct style. That’s one of the lovely things about the concept. It doesn’t work as well here because Ash isn’t a game character to start with (although their rendition is lovely), and Brock very sadly isn’t in 2D – I think they missed a real trick there by using what looked like Strong Bad’s 3Dification technique, meaning he really didn’t look like his cartoon self.

      • The Dark One says:

        I agree with you on this- the Heavy just looked wrong in the first Poker Night without TF2’s warm-to-cool shading.

      • DestroyYourEgo says:

        Ash IS a game character, just not from their realm.

        I personally don’t care for him. never trust a man with a Chainsaw for an arm- unless you’re asking him to clear a forest.

  12. Discopanda says:

    Well… first off, the Bruce Campbell-less Ash inclusion is mystifying. ABSOLUTELY MYSTIFYING. He’s the “Tycho” of this year’s game I suppose, but he fits the game much better than Tycho did.

    As for the gameplay, they have tells now! And the unlockable items (come on, they were the real draw last time) are much easier to get. Rather than winning a random round of poker when somebody decides to put an item up for a bet, you just have to fill out a checklist of three achievements.

    Other than that? I really like the music, remixes of the original tunes of the characters’ games into a relaxing smooth jazz. The poker is… decent! I suck at it, lose probably 25% of the tournaments I’m in. It seems okay to me.

    Overall, I’d say buy it right now if you’re a TF2 item whore (like me), or wait until it’s on sale if you’re fans of the characters and would like some poker.

    • SumDewd says:

      The “buy ins” were easy, but bounties are not easier. The 3 challenges are simply a way to activate the bounty, but you have to win (just like the old buy-in prizes) in the following tournament to earn the bounty.

      (spoiler) For instance, getting all three challenges will get CL4P-TP to bring out his 2010 VGA statuette. It sits on the table, but it’s not yours yet. You have to ace the whole tourney, not just oust a single player, in order to get it.

  13. geldonyetich says:

    Surprisingly, I spent about 6 hours playing Poker Night 2 yesterday, so I really can’t complain – given the price, I got my entertainment expense back already. Poker Night 2 is probably a game best played with an attitude seeking relaxation, pretending you’re shooting the breeze with some friends… as craven as that might seem when your friends are virtual video game characters.

    Maybe it’s the fact that poker is a game of more chance than skill, but I found Poker Night 2 to be rather challenging to reliably win even when the AI is programmed to bluff with a crap hand and does not commit to their monster raises when bluffing. Careful, conservative poker playing makes one no more immune to a card dealt in the wrong direction, so the AI get away with being casual-level and still be quite challenging.

    Despite Ash being not voiced by Bruce Campbell, I thought the impression was good enough to hit all the right buttons, so I’m honestly not complaining. I will say that the common references to Wendy were a little vague on account of how you barely even see her in the movie. Not even Google could tell me where Wendy came from in the Evil Dead franchise… I just assumed she was the clerk that Ash kisses at the end of the movie with his infamous, “Hail to the king” tag line.

    It’s important to mention that the four AIs each have a unique personality that comes into play. Potential spoilers in this paragraph. Ash is prone to bluffs – I guess going up against deadites has made him a little crazy. Claptrap is the opposite – he rarely ever bluffs, he’s a pretty simple and reliable player. Sam would seem to be a fairly decent player who knows he needs to bluff sometimes but is actually pretty easy to read. Brock is a bit bipolar, he’s an okay guy when he’s not a psychopath. Maybe that’s the real challenge of Poker Night: the cards aren’t going to help, but your opponents’ reactions can be all that matters.

    Dialogue is repetitive. I’d pay the game’s price again for a DLC that simply doubles their dialogue. But, if I’m just in the attitude to sit back and relax, I can humor it.

    • protowizard says:

      My impression is that Claptrap doesn’t know what he’s doing and that he acts fairly randomly, making him the successor to Max.

      • geldonyetich says:

        Having been in a few one-on-ones with Claptrap (he seems to be the most consistent winner so far) I’d say he’s a lot less random than that. I think he’s fairly naive, but he has some a poker program subroutine that tells him the odds, and he does what it says. So, if he is betting, then it’s because he has something. He either does not bluff, or bluffs very rarely.

        Ash, on the other hand, is a lot closer to the random personality – he bluffs and bets on just about anything so often I simply don’t take it seriously when he does anymore. Like Max, sometimes he actually does have something, but given his frequency of betting you wouldn’t know it.

        • Ted D. Bear says:

          Pretty much my experience too. Claptrap is the opponent to make it most frequently to the end by far, while Ash loves to kick himself out of the game early on.

        • SumDewd says:

          I honestly think GlaDOS has a crush on Claptrap and stacks the deck in his favor. She does call him “Mr. Funny Chips” and “The Funny Robot” from time to time. She’s all sweet on him, and he doesn’t have a clue.

          Got the game? Go all-in at every flop until you lose it all, then keep watching the game. (This, you don’t find in many games; passive entertainment value) When you’ve busted out, you get to watch them play poker like Poker Kings; will all hole cards visible and probabilities shown. Watch the cards that Claptrap gets dealt, again and again. In the 2 hrs I played the other day, I swear he got A+K three times, pairs four times, and at least an Ace kicker in 80% of the other deals. See for yourself.

  14. Snail says:

    Unlocking new themes for the Inventory also unlocks new dialogue. I think that happens if you buy the chips, decks and felts from a certain franchise. You probably didn’t play enough to “acquire” those, but those themes unlock some events and conversations worth seeing. You’ll get more out of your money’s worth.

    • SumDewd says:

      That said —and I’m in full agreement here— I believe it would still be a better game with more content. Games like this are begging for updates, or buffered content streams that update while you’re in the game. I mean, I’d love to actually hear what Patrick Warburton, Bruce Campbell, David Eddings (claptrap) and the two that now voice Sam & Max say at a poker game. (or even GlaDOS) They could have their own weekly poker game with a sound crew and release the content the next day!

  15. PikaBot says:

    I can’t agree with you about GLaDOS’s lines. They’re not like her dynamic with Chell, no, but it’s remarkably similar to her dynamic with the co-op robots.

  16. aliasi says:

    I find this review about as flawed as the review of the first one, although otherwise accurate. Because, once again: This is not a “game with professional poker players” simulator. It’s a “game with these characters” simulator. And, surprisingly, they act pretty much like you’d expect. Roughly speaking, Brock seems to map to the Heavy from the first game – he plays very aggressively. Claptrap seems to be roughly Strong Bad-ish in that he plays like a novice, Ash is about as random as Max was, and Sam, like Tycho, actually knows a little about poker.

    That said, it’s a fairly basic poker game and the lines do get old after awhile, but the “these players are awful!” criticism seems to be a real case of missing the point, to me.

    • Triplanetary says:

      Because, once again: This is not a “game with professional poker players” simulator. It’s a “game with these characters” simulator.

      Or maybe his issue is that the game’s not fun.

      • aliasi says:

        Not fun FOR HIM. Mostly because he seems to want it to be something it isn’t. There’s very good poker programs on the market with good AI, designed to teach you how to play like a pro. This isn’t that program. But it turns out – when you know how the players tend to act, you can actually play quite well. You know, LIKE PLAYING ACTUAL POKER! WITH ACTUAL PEOPLE! Try to force out the random players, bait Brock into being over aggressive, and just about every tourney wound up with me and Sam shooting it out since, again, he’s the one that actually plays somewhat rationally.

        • Docm30 says:

          You do realise a review is a completely subjective thing, right? if he didn’t find it fun, of course he’s going to write that it’s not fun (not that that’s he wrote).

          • RvLeshrac says:

            That’s the problem here. The review doesn’t say “I didn’t find the game amusing,” it instead accuses the game mechanics themselves of being bad when they are, demonstrably, not.

          • solidsquid says:

            From what I can see, there’s only two paragraphs which actually deal with the mechanics of the game and the rest deals with the problems with writing and characterisation. Of those paragraphs, one objects to the high fixed bids, which seems a reasonable complaint since it will have a big impact on the game.

  17. staberas says:

    I dont know about you guys but i’m not even looking at my cards i just go ALL IN and stare at Moxxi’s boobs … /jk

  18. Premium User Badge

    Hodge says:

    I’ve been playing it for the last couple of days and I pretty much agree with most of wot John said. The blinds thing especially, so much so that the best ‘strategy’ is to blindly go all in on the first deal and hope the flop falls your way. If you win, you eliminate all the players who matched you and you’ll end up with at least twice as many chips as anyone left. If you lose then you just start a new game and try again.

    I thought the writing was good though (even GLaDOS, mostly), and the conversations flow a lot better than they did in the first one. The repetition of dialogue is maddening, but that’s mainly to do with the algorithm that chooses it being terrible. It’s like the random mode on my car stereo, which will gleefully play the same five songs over and over in spite of there being hundreds to choose from. Something as simple as blacklisting each one-liner after it’s been played would help things dramatically, so that you only start hearing repeat gags after all the other material’s exhausted.

    It also would have been nice to have the option to include the characters from the first game if you own it, so you could pick your opponents from a field of eight (which would also help with the dialogue repetition thing). I’m guessing that’s more down to licensing, but still.

    • SumDewd says:

      The repetition of the first game (and the rather flat characters) turned me off after a while, but there’s deeper content than just the banter when all four are at the table. Eliminating, for each player, has a whole set of remarks to discover (like how Tycho would rip on Strong Bad in the first game)

      I like that most of the ‘glitches’ of the first game are now ironed over (instead of reactions being played one-two-three-four, the reactions overlap, much like an IRL game // rather than inappropriate rejoinders, like “I’ll check too” when it’s actually the one big-blind check after the deal, now they simply say “check”)

      I’ll agree that TTG hasn’t completely learned the lessons from the first game, but they’ve made progress. It feels less like a ‘poker simulator’ and more like hanging out with (unreal and highly improbable) buddies for a casual game of poker… if you hapen to casually toss 20 kilobucks around like pocket cash.

      Oh… and if you watch the complete intro, you’ll catch an homage to the original Poker Night at The Inventory characters. (watch the walls as you are descending the staircase)

  19. The Random One says:

    Looks like I’ll save my local equivalent of £4 and just watch a youtube clip of the best banter, as I’ve done with the first.

  20. itsdvw says:

    Did any of you try changing the setting via the unlockable chips / table / cards? Each setting has its own set of entirely unique banter between the characters. There’s six times as much dialogue as you think.

    • RvLeshrac says:

      Play the game? Use the mechanics? You’re unfamiliar with John Walker’s work, then.

    • geldonyetich says:

      I’m noticing this, too. It’s not literally six times the dialogue – there is some dialogue that is reused between tables – but a lot of the conversations and such that happen vary depending on the location.

      For example, in third Sam and Max themed location, a lot of the conversations seem to go in the direction of Sam and Max being on their 25th anniversary.

      There’s also unique player elimination animations for each of the locations. The Borderland themed ones are highly recommended.

  21. trinka00 says:

    this sounds lame. i guess my hopes were high, cuz i’d seen the TF2 spy mask a couple months ago and assumed it meant that Handsome Jack was going to be one of the players.
    but instead they chose Claptrap.
    Claptrap is kind of unusual in that he really is as annoying as he’s supposed to be.
    usually characters never are.
    i’d honestly rather play Poker with Jar Jar Binks than Claptrap.

    i don’t understand why the first one couldn’t have been an even barely just halfway decent poker sim.
    that’s all it would’ve taken and i would love it for what it is,
    it can’t be that hard to make one of those, right? weird.