Game Review: The London Game
Jun. 1st, 2009 09:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
major_clangerPlayed last night at the Pembury, because somebody suggested On The Underground and I hadn't brought my copy.
When we set it up I dimly remembered it from my youth, and it turns out that The London Game was indeed first sold in the early Seventies. Other than the theme of travelling around the tube though, there's not a lot of resemblance to On The Underground. That game is a line-building strategy game akin to Ticket to Ride or its variants. The London Game is, frankly, more a dressed-up version of Snakes and Ladders. Almost every effort to change lines triggers a random move to somewhere else on the map, so having any kind of strategy is almost impossible. Meanwhile, it seems that the game was hardly playtested (and nobody has incorporated any feedback into the rules in the last four decades) because it's easy to use simple tactics to block other players in such that they miss turn after turn until they throw a six.
This is actually a good example of a game that typifies the difference between what most people think of when I say 'board game' and what actual gamers mean by one. It's got a board and counters and cards, but the rules ensure that it is principally a game of chance rather than skill. Actually, I suspect that it was play-tested, and was tweaked to remove any element that would allow someone to become a proficient tactical or strategic player and thus diminish its value as a Family Game (i.e. one everyone has an equal chance of winning, no matter how many times you play it.)
Yes, I know that Fluxx can also be criticised for rapid reverses of fortunes. But Fluxx (a) does allow for tactical play - although you have to be prepared to shift tactics quicky - and (b) is actually fun to play. Perhaps my review is more jaundiced because I missed nine successive turns trying to roll a six. But a good game ought not to ever put you in that position.
The London Game might be salvageable with some house rules, I admit. For instance, saying that on the third missed turn a station opens and a trapped player can escape, or making a player roll 1D6 when changing lines and only having to draw a Hazard card on a 5 or 6. But as it stands, taking this to a gaming con would be like sitting down at the Casino Royale and asking if anyone wanted to play Snap.
When we set it up I dimly remembered it from my youth, and it turns out that The London Game was indeed first sold in the early Seventies. Other than the theme of travelling around the tube though, there's not a lot of resemblance to On The Underground. That game is a line-building strategy game akin to Ticket to Ride or its variants. The London Game is, frankly, more a dressed-up version of Snakes and Ladders. Almost every effort to change lines triggers a random move to somewhere else on the map, so having any kind of strategy is almost impossible. Meanwhile, it seems that the game was hardly playtested (and nobody has incorporated any feedback into the rules in the last four decades) because it's easy to use simple tactics to block other players in such that they miss turn after turn until they throw a six.
This is actually a good example of a game that typifies the difference between what most people think of when I say 'board game' and what actual gamers mean by one. It's got a board and counters and cards, but the rules ensure that it is principally a game of chance rather than skill. Actually, I suspect that it was play-tested, and was tweaked to remove any element that would allow someone to become a proficient tactical or strategic player and thus diminish its value as a Family Game (i.e. one everyone has an equal chance of winning, no matter how many times you play it.)
Yes, I know that Fluxx can also be criticised for rapid reverses of fortunes. But Fluxx (a) does allow for tactical play - although you have to be prepared to shift tactics quicky - and (b) is actually fun to play. Perhaps my review is more jaundiced because I missed nine successive turns trying to roll a six. But a good game ought not to ever put you in that position.
The London Game might be salvageable with some house rules, I admit. For instance, saying that on the third missed turn a station opens and a trapped player can escape, or making a player roll 1D6 when changing lines and only having to draw a Hazard card on a 5 or 6. But as it stands, taking this to a gaming con would be like sitting down at the Casino Royale and asking if anyone wanted to play Snap.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-01 08:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-01 08:53 am (UTC)In other ISIHAC-related news, I am writing an Opinion this morning where part of my client's evidence is a letter from Mrs Trellis of North Wales.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-01 09:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-01 10:15 am (UTC)But I disagree that it doesn't allow for tactics. It allows for blocking tactics, so that people can be stopped form winning (as I know to my cost!). It doesn't allow for winning tactics because of the randomization. It thus becomes an exercise in frustration, but one far less fun that the original game of that name.