(no subject) [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

My parents are visiting. This evening, we played Apples to Apples.

Most hilarious result of the evening was for "juicy" which was won by "Lady Margaret Thatcher"

←

→

There are 24 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Not Margot Leadbetter???

[link] [reply]

Edited Date: 2010-12-28 10:26 pm (UTC)

[link] [reply]

Oh me too!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Thirded.

[link] [parent] [reply]

An 85-year-old Conservative ex Prime Minister is hardly what I would call "juicy". ;o)

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think we all got that part, but we've never heard of the game and so don't get why she was being called "juicy" to general hilarity!

[link] [parent] [reply]

I've only played Apples to Apples once, but I quickly realised the important strategic element: the way to win is to give the answer that gets chosen, which is emphatically not the same thing as the most pertinent and appropriate answer. (-8

[link] [reply]

I love Apples to Apples, because it's the purest form of the most interesting aspect of games, which is when they not about playing the rules, but about playing the other players. Rules are boring; people are interesting; and so a game with almost no rules which is all about predicting the reactions of another person is bound to be infinitely more interesting than all the games which are about any kind of strategy, put together.

(The only other game which is comparable is poker, but I think Apples to Apples has the edge as poker is only about reading people in one specific dimension, whereas Apples to Apples positively rewards creating and lateral thinking, zeroing in on unexpected aspects of peoples' personalities in other to lay down a card which will delight only but exactly that person who is choosing.)

S.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Oh, but that makes Mornington Crescent absolutely the BEST of games :-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Except not really because it isn't actually, you know, a game. Which wouldn't matter, of course, if it was actually funny rather than the most utterly tedious bit of I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue. You know, the bit you always fast-forward past to get to when Humph slags off Colin Sell.

Still, not so much an issue now as I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue is gone forever (SHUT UP YES IT IS SHUT UP TRAVESTY TRAVESTY SHUT UP).

S.

[link] [parent] [reply]

"Which wouldn't matter, of course, if it was actually funny rather than the most utterly tedious bit of I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue."

OMG it's not just me?!!?! I've never met anyone prepared to admit that before, rather than looking smug and uttering some nonsense including the name of a tube station.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Oh, no, seriously, it's awful. It's one joke that stopped being funny some time in the mid-seventies. I mean, the games were always a bit of dull padding in between Humph talking about Samantha that were the main point of the programme, but at least the other ones had the possibility of producing something amysing once in a while. Mornington Crescent was the exact same dead horse flogged over and over again.

S.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Lol, Humph talking about Samantha is the other part I find tedious. I live for One Song to the Tune of Another and the film prequels and that sort of thing.

[link] [parent] [reply]

As JRP once pointed out, the frivolous nature of Mornington Crescent and pretence of complex rules mask the fact that there is actually a meta-game being played which is susceptible to analysis.

The meta-game is to be the first person to say "Mornington Crescent" in a way other players accept as valid. Quite apart from the side subtleties of the manner of delivery and accompanying reasoning, the key point is that the longer the game goes on, the more acceptable it is to say "Mornington Crescent", but the more likely it becomes that another player will get there first.

This has a lot in common with Dutch auctions, but JRP also observes that the Mornington Crescent meta-game is isomorphic to a game he calls "Come to Dinner": player A wishes to be friendly to player B by inviting them to dinner, but does not actually want B to come to dinner. Player B would like to go to dinner with A, but wishes to seem polite by declining at least the first few invitations. So player A wants to invite player B to dinner as many times as possible without player B accepting. Player B wants to postpone accepting for as long as possible while still accepting before A stops asking.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Even if that were true (it isn't) the point remains that it isn't a game, it's a segment ona comedy programme, and therefore its first duty is to be funny, which it also isn't.

S.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Elephant and Castle.

(somehow I sense you are not going to play)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Surely Diplomacy is the ultimate game of predicting the reactions of another person? In that category it has the commendable characteristics of a complete lack of hidden state and simultaneous actions by all players. When played properly, the fairly simple game mechanics are completely swamped by all the machinations: two turns a week is about right.

[link] [parent] [reply]

We tried to play that Yesterday- an enjoyable game one you had finished reading through the insanely overcomplex instructions and started playing- not least for the look on my husband's face as our eight year old son conquered Turkey.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Nah, because again, that operates in a restricted domain: you don't win by, say, knowing someone is scared of celery or has a soft spot for dwarves, either of which can win you a round of Apples to Apples.

S.

[link] [parent] [reply]