I have much respect for the core engine of pandemic. Easy to teach and fundamentally easy to grasp. Taught a new player to board games (well, played monopoly, trivial pursuit etc but they don't count) the rules to pandemic in 5 minutes. But how you execute those rules... jesus... Genius design, and i've never had a board game experience like it. Very much looking forward to playing season 2 (got it for xmas :-D)
I like watching this because it takes you through the process of how board games are made. Also by the first slide I knew you guys were kinda nerdy because of some of the names.
Played it over last year playing each month in the month. Amazing experience - so many highs and lows. However, the major fault they made is in the first few cards of the legacy deck whee the first STOP card is...we stopped reading it but the text at the bottom of the card is the key information setting up the whole of the story...so we had to play again after removing the stickers! Apart from that superb. And yes...September...beats any reveal in any film...Luke got off easy! Season 2 - jury is out...not as much peril for losing months apart from lower end score...obviously only up to April!
I just want to say that the act structure is a little wrong to begin with. Typically, it follows the 25-50-25 rule, which is act 1 is 25%, act 2 is 50%, and act 3 is 25%, whereas, for this, they showed all acts as being equal in length, which almost never happens anywhere, ever.
I felt the funding thing was a bit too harsh. We had a lot of months where we were at 0 extra cards and lost, then we had 2 and won just to lose the 2 cards again. It was an overall really awesome experience, though. We got hit really hard by RNG at a couple of points but we still managed to beat the game on the last few cards of the last month. Definetely going to get Season 2. (Also: Ssssseptember!! )
These guys are logically wrong about the card thing at 44:00 The initial wording: "...if you have not yet opened Package 6 or Package 7." parses into: !( isOpened( package6 ) OR isOpened( package7 ) ) which would evaluate to false in all cases except where isOpened( package6 ) == F and isOpened( package7 ) == F. The new wording: "If either Package 6 or Package 7 is unopened scratch this card." parses into: !( isOpened( package6 ) ) OR !( isOpened( package7 ) ) which evaluates to true in all cases except where isOpened( package6 ) == F and isOpened( package7 ) == F. TL;DR they were objectively wrong the first time and players were right to be confused.
I agree. Its plain wrong, not a misunderstanding. Also, i don't think this card looks "pretty innocent". When i first read it i thought that this wording is pretty error prone.
In fact it's as if they considered "not opened" as its own state, not the negation of "opened". They understood their initial wording as "(notopened pack6) OR (notopened pack7)", which is consistent with the 2nd wording. Totally confusing indeed, and not because players "don't think like engineers" like they said. Maybe something like "scratch it unless you opened both pack 6 and 7" would be easier to understand.
The german translation of this card was: "Scratch this card if you have opened neither package 6 nor package 7". So even the translator did not understand what they really meant (but his translation was more comprehensible)
It's a little strange to make points about 'objective' meaning of phrases in natural language using programming language. The logical structure embedded in natural language is not straightforward and certainly not objective - at most it's intersubjective, namely it gains its truth conditions for whatever is the shared understanding in the community of speaker (which is never universal). I understand you were using programming syntax as a way to formulate the logical structure of the statement but it's just not going to cut it. More to the point, in most contexts of natural language as I know it, people using the word as inclusive and not exclusive or. It's not always true, context always matters for meaning in natural language - but thinking of the meaning of natural language using logical operators as they are commonly understood in programming is not a decisive argument for objective or even correct meaning. To be honest, it's hardly relevant.
Agreed^^ this is English and not programming language. "if (conditional) you have not opened (verbal phrase) package 6 or package 7 (objects linked by alternatives.)" This means the condition is met if package 6 is not opened. It also means that the condition is met if package 7 is not opened. This remains logically true if both are not opened. In all those cases the condition is met. But if BOTH are opened then the condition has not been met.
To this day - the best board game experience I've ever had. Cinematic, dramatic, challenging. So great!
I have much respect for the core engine of pandemic.
Easy to teach and fundamentally easy to grasp. Taught a new player to board games (well, played monopoly, trivial pursuit etc but they don't count) the rules to pandemic in 5 minutes. But how you execute those rules... jesus...
Genius design, and i've never had a board game experience like it. Very much looking forward to playing season 2 (got it for xmas :-D)
I like watching this because it takes you through the process of how board games are made.
Also by the first slide I knew you guys were kinda nerdy because of some of the names.
High-Five from a fellow GWJer and huge fan of Unmarked and Orbital Decay. Nice job, Rob!
Played it over last year playing each month in the month. Amazing experience - so many highs and lows.
However, the major fault they made is in the first few cards of the legacy deck whee the first STOP card is...we stopped reading it but the text at the bottom of the card is the key information setting up the whole of the story...so we had to play again after removing the stickers! Apart from that superb.
And yes...September...beats any reveal in any film...Luke got off easy!
Season 2 - jury is out...not as much peril for losing months apart from lower end score...obviously only up to April!
I just want to say that the act structure is a little wrong to begin with. Typically, it follows the 25-50-25 rule, which is act 1 is 25%, act 2 is 50%, and act 3 is 25%, whereas, for this, they showed all acts as being equal in length, which almost never happens anywhere, ever.
Good talk! Rob, right speaker, has an Egon-Spengler-thing going on in his voice. ;)
Our Medic was named Chunk. After Lawrence Cohen, the Goonies character.
Where is Rob Daviau's presentation on legacy games that he said repeatedly he was making the following day? I can't find it on the GDC channel.
It's very probably on the vault
Well done and so inspirational, you guys!
I felt the funding thing was a bit too harsh. We had a lot of months where we were at 0 extra cards and lost, then we had 2 and won just to lose the 2 cards again.
It was an overall really awesome experience, though. We got hit really hard by RNG at a couple of points but we still managed to beat the game on the last few cards of the last month. Definetely going to get Season 2.
(Also: Ssssseptember!! )
awseme, I´m giving a course in Game Design, and this conference help me a lot. Where are the notes? Thank you. I´m from Paraguay.
I quite like the idea of bridge legacy…. The first time you lose to a 5 no trumps contract you torch the deck.
We opened box 6 by mistake too. Wish we hadn't. Im sure it would have made everything even better.
These guys are logically wrong about the card thing at 44:00
The initial wording:
"...if you have not yet opened Package 6 or Package 7."
parses into:
!( isOpened( package6 ) OR isOpened( package7 ) )
which would evaluate to false in all cases except where isOpened( package6 ) == F and isOpened( package7 ) == F.
The new wording:
"If either Package 6 or Package 7 is unopened scratch this card."
parses into:
!( isOpened( package6 ) ) OR !( isOpened( package7 ) )
which evaluates to true in all cases except where isOpened( package6 ) == F and isOpened( package7 ) == F.
TL;DR they were objectively wrong the first time and players were right to be confused.
I agree. Its plain wrong, not a misunderstanding. Also, i don't think this card looks "pretty innocent". When i first read it i thought that this wording is pretty error prone.
In fact it's as if they considered "not opened" as its own state, not the negation of "opened". They understood their initial wording as "(notopened pack6) OR (notopened pack7)", which is consistent with the 2nd wording. Totally confusing indeed, and not because players "don't think like engineers" like they said. Maybe something like "scratch it unless you opened both pack 6 and 7" would be easier to understand.
The german translation of this card was: "Scratch this card if you have opened neither package 6 nor package 7". So even the translator did not understand what they really meant (but his translation was more comprehensible)
It's a little strange to make points about 'objective' meaning of phrases in natural language using programming language. The logical structure embedded in natural language is not straightforward and certainly not objective - at most it's intersubjective, namely it gains its truth conditions for whatever is the shared understanding in the community of speaker (which is never universal). I understand you were using programming syntax as a way to formulate the logical structure of the statement but it's just not going to cut it.
More to the point, in most contexts of natural language as I know it, people using the word as inclusive and not exclusive or. It's not always true, context always matters for meaning in natural language - but thinking of the meaning of natural language using logical operators as they are commonly understood in programming is not a decisive argument for objective or even correct meaning. To be honest, it's hardly relevant.
Agreed^^ this is English and not programming language.
"if (conditional) you have not opened (verbal phrase) package 6 or package 7 (objects linked by alternatives.)"
This means the condition is met if package 6 is not opened. It also means that the condition is met if package 7 is not opened. This remains logically true if both are not opened. In all those cases the condition is met. But if BOTH are opened then the condition has not been met.
What is this energy. Oof. Guy on the right is so mad at left man for some reason. Always talk over him, no laughs for his jokes, body language.
I genuinely don’t see it. I see two slightly awkward blokes discussing a creative business venture they engaged in together.