by Sphere
kaziam wrote:
I'm not calling anyone a moron. If someone feels like a moron because they enjoy a Yahtzee derivative game, then that's their own gamer elitism guilt. Yahtzee is a fine, classic game with 31 fans on BGG that stands with Boggle, Scrabble, Pictionary and Monopoly as an extremely popular, extremely accessible game.
You're being disingenuous. You used the word Yahtzee pejoratively no less than 10 times in your review, e.g.
kaziam wrote:
But then along comes King of TokyoTokyo Princess Yahtzee. Again, you are a slave to the dice. Tactics? Strategy? How are there even discussions about this?
If you didn't think that was contemptuous, you need to work on your writing skills. We don't feel guilty for liking Yahtzee; we feel that you are rude for suggesting that we should. Gamer elitism is a good descriptor of your attitude, not ours.
kaziam wrote:
King of Tokyo does offer more choice than Yahtzee (2 more choices to be exact). It is more visually and thematically appealing. I'm not sure that I agree that choosing among claws/energy/VP/hearts is "subtle strategy" that I am missing, but I agree that it is different from just collecting sets.
Number of choices is a false metric. What matters is the difficulty of the choices. You could say that Go has only one choice, where to place a stone repeatedly until the end of the game, but a person could spend a lifetime improving their ability to choose where to place that stone. The choices you listed for KoT are deeper than you give them credit for, but that's irrelevant. Those of us who rate King of Tokyo highly don't claim it's a deep game, nor does the fact that we like it imply that we can't appreciate deep games.
We're not trying to convince you to like KoT, and you've made your own views abundantly clear, so why not give it a rest? It isn't a contest; different people like different things.