• Hawke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    Ā·
    4 days ago

    the misery of slowly losing knowing that thereā€™s nothing you can do

    Given thatā€™s the entire point of the game, that seems like it achieves the objective. Why would you want to extend that phase of the game?

    • andros_rex@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      Ā·
      4 days ago

      As a family game - it makes sense to have that kind of ā€œMario Partyā€ random bullshit that gives the worst player a chance to catch up. Sometimes the 6 year old deserves a break.

      I broke Clue when I was 10 - I figured out that you could fish for a specific item, place or person if you guess two of them that youā€™re holding. If no one can show you that card, youā€™ve confirmed the candlestick or whatever, and you also havenā€™t really revealed that much.

      Most of the classic family games suck. Life, Chutes and Ladders, Candyland are all ā€œrandom number says you win!ā€ Monopoly can get some life from being treated like a social/backstabbing game at least.

      • SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        Ā·
        4 days ago

        I broke Clue when I was 10 - I figured out that you could fish for a specific item, place or person if you guess two of them that youā€™re holding. If no one can show you that card, youā€™ve confirmed the candlestick or whatever, and you also havenā€™t really revealed that much.

        To me, it sounds like you just didnā€™t have anyone competent to play with. If everyone is using this strategy, theyā€™ll also be able to narrow down which cards you have, giving them more information.