The Blogtastic Blogfest That Is Getmeoutofthis.net!

I wonder where the luck/strategy threshold is for Essner.

So we played Acquire this evening, a game which has a strong random element to it. You draw tiles from a box that you can play on the board. Knowing what kind of connections you can make with tiles and guessing what various hotels your opponents are investing in are important to the game. When you know this, you’ll know what is going to buy out what, and thus what to invest in. Of course, you only know the moves possible from your hand. You don’t know what everyone else is drawing.

Essner seems to think this creates a game where there is no strategy to the moves and decisions you make, and someone just randomly wins. While luck does play a huge part, the idea that it’s only luck is verifiable as not true, which I think he would admit. It doesn’t change his gut reaction to the game, though, which is perfectly fair. A lot of the game can feel really random.

I just wonder where the line is for that kind of reaction, though. I mean, this is a guy who loves to play those coin push machines, and I feel like that’s almost completely random. Does he agree? Does he think there’s some small element of strategy in playing those games? I can’t speak for him, so I’m not sure. We play stuff like Magic, which has an obvious random element in card drawing, and other games with dice rolls and things of that nature, and he doesn’t really seem to think those are luck based, even though he always critically misses.

I don’t mean to pick on Essner. The other people I know who don’t like Acquire have the exact same feeling about it. I just wonder what it is about how the game goes that causes it to feel that way. Is it simply because you have to hedge your bets against many possible futures, and try to set up a situation where you can capitalize on most of them, as opposed to dealing with one threat in front of you?

This is what I am thinking about as I head to bed. What do you think of Acquire?