Not that we were totally enamoured by all of Chinese Checkers. As shit as we were at Chinese Checkers, we were always playing Chinese Checkers. You running around a closed room looking for the one exit place which is a tad too in shadows is primarily unsatisfactory because - fundamentally - you're no-longer playing the game. And the second a linear first-person shooter game fails to provide the correct amount of direction, the game just falls apart - both the illusion of the world, but more importantly, any sense of how you're playing the game. In non-abstract games, look at the effort that developers like Valve do in terms of guiding the player's eyes to where you want to go. What's more important is knowing where you want to move to. Knowing how you move your "piece" is a small thing. Purely mechanistic Tutorials are over-rated. That's what I like most about Chinese Checkers, and it's something which transfers back to many videogames. Or to put it another way, we weren't lost. Conceptually, the game had a safety-net which caught us. And no matter how shit I am, I can do that.
Chinese checkers rules 2 players how to#
We may not understand the fine parts of strategy and especially tactics, but we understand how to win the game. I think it all comes down to the all important clear goals. When we're so ignorant, how? Surely we'd be pissed off? In fact, of all the less familiar games we play Chinese Checkers is the one we enjoy most. Neither of know what we're doing, really, but we're oddly fine with it. But how do you do that thing? And is it right? Who knows? We've got the main strategy is to create these long chains of jumps to get you to where you want to, while stopping your enemy using your chain to move where they wants to go - while simultaneously trying to use their pieces to help your cause. Was moving them up to fill the triangle a good idea or a bad one? We haven't a clue, and we chuckle about it good-naturedly.
The Lady has more pieces near the end but I've got more pieces in there. We play the entire game without a clue who's actually winning. Eventually, one person or the other is going to win, unless you forget which triangle you're aiming at. In other words, while an unexpected sort of scenario, the rules themselves are dead simple. Unlike draughts, if you jump over a piece, it remains fine. Though jump-frog teams in traffic does sound like a splendid idea - perhaps as an APB mob. This can be either your side or the opposition - and since the paths cross one another, it's basically like two teams of champion jump-froggers attempting to get across a crossroads. Also, like draughts, if there's another move they can make from the jump where they find themselves, they can make another one. However, like Draughts, if there's a space clear on the far side, you're able to jump over other pieces. You can move one space at a go, which makes it appear to be a somewhat hard slog to get anywhere.
Each person takes one triangle of pieces, and has the aim to move them all to the opposite corner. Okay - you may be like us, so not know how this baby works. Not the tragic downfall of a cross-race love by a right jealous dick fucking it all up. She hasn't even played draughts (or checkers), though when we start, its jumping mechanics seem familiar.
I think I've played it perhaps once, but it's so long ago and so foggy it could be that I've just seen a game played - or even that I've been vaguely aware it was in compendium box-sets.
0 kommentar(er)
