Dinner-Time Game Argument

Hello, all. I wanted to bring up a topic that was discussed, or rather argued, at my family’s dinner table a few nights ago. All 5 of my family members are living at home now, which hasn’t happened in the last 4 years, so tension is already high. While eating our delicious home-cooked meal, my brother (Ryan, 22) decideds to let us all know how much he hates the game Candy Land. If you need a reminder of what this game is, here you go:

The classic family board game, Candy Land

As you can see, Candy Land is a racing game, where players take turns drawing cards to direct them on how far to move. Ryan’s argument for Candy Land being the “worst board game” was this: The game is pre-determined before you ever start playing. Once the card deck is shuffled, the game has already decided who will win because every 4th card belongs to one specific player. I had an issue with this for a few reasons… First, it doesn’t matter what order the stack is in because 1. it’s still randomized by shuffling it, and 2. no one playing knows what order the cards are in, so the idea of the game prematurely “deciding” the winner is irrelevant because no one playing knows the outcome yet. I think this also can be compared to the roll of dice. Obviously, no one “knows” what the die will land on, but they know it will be a 1-6. Same can be applied to drawing cards: If no one knows the order of the stack, you can guess what card you might draw based on your knowledge of the cards, but the best you can do to sway the results is pick your turn in the order (like how you can change how sofly you roll the dice).

On the flip side of things, I can see how some cards only occur once before they cannot be used for the rest of the game, in comparison to a die that can land on a certain number an infinite amount of times. But, there is also the fact that this occurs in almost any game that involves cards.

If you have input on this debate, feel free to comment. That is all.

emma
Latest posts by emma (see all)

2 thoughts on “Dinner-Time Game Argument

  1. If I had to guess, I think your brother’s main issue with Candyland is that there is no player input. You’re right that the deck of cards can be compared with a roll of the dice, but that also means that the entire game of Candyland can be compared to a series of mindless dice rolls. Most games with dice-rolling mechanics have some way for players to make decisions throughout the game. I’m not super familiar with Candyland, but if the only game mechanic is drawing cards, then your brother might be trying to compare it to a game in which players take turns rolling dice and doing absolutely nothing else. He might not find this kind of game fun, since he doesn’t have any way to really do anything about the end outcome of the game.

    1. If I remember correctly, Candyland has almost not strategy involved. Going off of what Patrick has said, their is little option for player choice and risk/reward. This is not a bad thing. Candyland is an especially great game for young children who don’t fully understand strategy yet. Anyone could win because the game is heavily based on luck. I grew up with the game and have no problems with it, though I don’t see myself playing it again any time soon. I feel like you can compare this to how people feel about Mario Party. It is a serious highly dependent on luck. Most people prefer the minigames as they tend to be the things where skill and tactics matter more. Not to say that the board game element didn’t have some level of strategy. As the series went on, people became more upset because the board element became more and more luck based, ie. everyone is moving along in the same a car and can’t plan ahead. There is nothing wrong with this style of game, it just doesn’t fit every audience’s expectations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *