(Topic ID: 295880)

More and more, gravitating towards less complex rules

By Doctor6

2 years ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

You

Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic Gallery

    View topic image gallery

    552169A7-7E8E-4398-A3E0-4B4D334097DA (resized).jpeg
    simple jack (resized).jpg
    PotC JJP characters explained (0.99) (resized).jpg
    index (resized).jpg

    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider nickbuffalopinball.
    Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

    #26 2 years ago

    I'm reading this discussion, and in particular what the OP is saying, and my takeaway is that he/she likes games with shorter ball times, versus long. I say this b/c Hobbit is used as an example of a game the OP doesn't like, and the games the OP does like has shorter ball times. OP even references TWD as a game they like, despite the fact that it has a deep rule-set.

    You tend to find "deeper" rule-sets on games that have longer ball times. This makes sense: if the ball is going to be in play longer, and game time longer, you need deeper rules to fill up this time space.

    Medieval Madness has a fairly deep rule-set for a 90s game, yet, that game is universally loved. I don't think having more basic rules is really what people want. Maybe a better way to phrase this, is, "less esoteric rules"? For example, I like a game that has a really good rule-set, that despite taking some time to understand, makes some sense and ties into the game. But when you have a game like SW, that has ridiculous mutipliers, even though I'm a competitive person that has been in the hobby for a long time, I'm like, "WTF?". Yes, I want deep. I want there to be a lot there, but I also don't want to get my calculator out.

    It's funny how we've swung from "Where's the code?" to, "Please give me a basic bitch game" (I kid, but, you get it)

    #29 2 years ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    As I've said many times, you don't need to worry, the computer does the calculations for you.

    That's fine, I get it. I like multipliers, don't get me wrong. TWD is one of my favorite games. I'm now looking at getting a LZ.

    I took a swipe at SW b/c to me, some of the of the stuff going on in the game seems really obtuse. Maybe that's just me. I'm not saying the math is wrong. There are deeper games than SW that I like way more. I'm just not a fan of the scoring in that game and the recent update Dwight did to GB.

    In the end, it seems we both like deep games and multipliers (generally).

    #42 2 years ago
    Quoted from oldbaby:

    The thing about the 36 characters

    22 characters. But your point is right on. You don't need to memorize or care about all the characters, just the character you pick. And the rule modification they make to the game isn't complex, it's simply interesting.

    #46 2 years ago
    Quoted from oldbaby:

    He said 36 characters first! When I typed it I thought to myself "Wait, is that right?"

    Haha, I hear you, even 22 is insane (in a good, amazing way)

    #88 2 years ago
    Quoted from Doctor6:

    I didn't say I don't like Hobbit. I love Hobbit

    Fair enough, I misinterpreted that.

    It just seems it's more of a longer playing game vs a shorter playing game argument, no? I mean, I can totally relate. If you're blowing up the Hobbit, you've played for a LONG time, right? And I'm like you, after blowing up a long playing game, I don't feel compelled to play again, it's exhausting. Hell, longer playing games can be like 30 minutes. I'm good after a 30 minute game, no need to play it again.

    But if I'm blowing up one of the games that you mentioned in your original post, I mean, that could be like a 5 - 10 minute game, so yea, you might hit the start button a few more times. I find I do the same. Yet at that end, the play time on both games might be the same.

    There's a correlation here though: longer playing games (games where it's easier to keep the ball in play), if they are any good, need to have deeper/more complex rules. Games that are more difficult to keep the ball in play for a longer period of time, tend to have less deep rules, given that it's hard to get "far" into a brutal, shorter playing game (think Iron Man).

    In my collection there's a huge mix. I tend to like fast and brutal games. But that doesn't mean that the rules should be simple, cut and paste. I hate Munsters, it's boring as can be due to the rules. I love TWD. It's brutal and can be short, but the rules are so good. One thing in particular is that there's multiple ways to approach and play that game in terms of scoring. There's some original and clever things in that game.

    #90 2 years ago
    Quoted from Hench4Life:

    Not to mention the best music and light show integration in pinball.

    LOL, no offense to Spooky light shows, but, you need to get out more.

    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider nickbuffalopinball.
    Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

    Reply

    Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

    Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

    Donate to Pinside

    Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!


    This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/more-and-more-gravitating-towards-less-complex-rules?tu=nickbuffalopinball and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.

    Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.