Musings On... Betrayal at House on the Hill (#8)
Tom: Theme is not strong enough of a word when dealing with Betrayal at House on the Hill; the word “atmosphere” is much better, as this game is absolutely filled to the brim with this. People who complain about games because they are too dry and boring should check this thriller out; every horror movie cliche that one can imagine is jammed packed into this game. From the game mechanics, exploring a creepy haunted house that is a combination of every scary dwelling in history, to the cards and books - there is just so much going on. I can't imagine a horror game getting better than this one!Jeremy: You've got to be kidding me. (Tom, you are kidding, right?) B.a.H.o.t.H. (let's just call it Betrayal for short) is a prime example of another boring piece of game design foisted upon Americans, trying to fool them into thinking there is something here worth playing. When I heard about Betrayal, I thought the idea of varying scenarios was a good one, and I wondered how they would be executed. Now that I have played it, I really do think that the mechanics should be executed -- if you catch my drift. The idea of changing game conditions, and a "one against the rest" mechanic made me excited for the game -- only to discover upon playing the game that Betrayal is essentially just another dungeon crawl game. Really, all they have done is change the game from a "dungeons & dragons" theme to a horror theme -- and I don't even think they did that all that well. Shoot, give me the old theme and the better gameplay of some of the older dungeon crawl games over this mediocre game.
John: Jeremy, Tom's not kidding - the theme is so incredibly thick in this game that it totally overshadows all other aspects of play. You can think of it as a dungeon-crawl, and those have indeed been done better before. But if you go at it from that angle, you're missing out on the point of the play experience - this game is intended to make you feel like a character in a cheap horror flick, and in that respect, it does everything right. Playing Betrayal is a chance to make your own little monster movie - and nobody
knows exactly how it's going to end, or who's going to survive!
Tom: Jeremy, aren't you the same person who complained about Maharaja because it was so dray and boring? This game is anything BUT dry and boring! I will agree that the gameplay isn't superlative; but it's on the same level as Heroquest, BloodBowl, and even the vaunted Heroscape rules-wise. Adding in other effects such as low lighting, creepy music, etc., can really enhance the mood. But most importantly are the people you game with. A good, into-the-mood group can really make playing Betrayal one of the most fun experiences you've ever had. An analytical, must-win-at-all-costs group, on the other hand, can sour the experience, turning the spotlight on the mechanics of the game, which are simplistic and sometimes unbalanced.
Jeremy: Betrayal IS dry and boring. Just because a game has a paragraph of flavor text when I land in a room doesn't mean it oozes with theme (and I fail to understand why a small core of American gamers thinks that it does!) Okay, here's a snippet of gameplay from Betrayal: my character enters a room, a card is read and suddenly I am stupider. I make an adjustment on my "hex-o-stat" to denote my plummeting intelligence rating then enter the next room where I gain a speed point (which now makes me the fastest imbecile in the galaxy.) So, dumb and fast, my turn ends. Now next turn I will again enter rooms with random effects, acquiring random items, and having my stats changed arbitrarily. Now halfway thru the game, the excitement begins! I leave the room while the other team reads the scenario. I come back and for the next 15 minutes, two of the characters sit in a room rolling dice adding tokens to an "axe" card while I try attacking two other players (literally this time -- such is my boredom.) Then the die-rolling axe-wielder enters the same room as me, rolls the die and wins the game. Gameplay summary: enter room, read paragraph, roll dice, repeat; read scenarios (which are just some other combination of dice, cards, and paragraphs), carry out scenario, and declare winner (who pretty much won the game based on how well he rolled the dice.) TOM & JOHN THIS DOES NOT QUALIFY AS THEME!!! but it does qualify as lame, derivative, and soulless drek. In fact, as lame, derivative, soulless drek, I'd rate it about a 9. (So you see, I can find something positive to say about every game. =)
John: I think I can understand where Jeremy is coming from, even if I don't particularly agree with him. For Betrayal to be fun, you have to *want* to enjoy it. When I played with my group, we had a blast making creepy Vincent Price voices and coming up with wacky names for the characters - we'd read the "Omen" cards with extra melodrama and narrate the story on our own. Betrayal was more of a player aid than anything - providing the framework for us to build an hour of fun out of it. If you come to the game looking at just the basic components of play, then you get what Jeremy just listed: a bunch of stat changes and dice rolls that don't add up to much fun. And if the whole group is going to look at the game that way, then he's right: you're better off playing something else. But there is certainly a type of player (and group of players) that this game is perfect for - and I venture to say that this type of group will enjoy Betrayal a LOT. From the variety of setups to the excellent artwork on the tiles, I feel that theme is definitely the focus of this game, and is done very well (for the most part).
Tom: Do you agree on this point, Jeremy? Do you think that there are certain groups of players who would enjoy the game based on its theme and atmosphere alone? Normally I would be furious to have a game that changed the stats of my players on a whim, but in this game it's almost a role-playing experience with the cards and the books acting as a sort of neutral gamemaster.
That being said, I do have one small problem with the game, and that's the sheer amount of components. I love the components of the game - and think they're great; but if you punch out everything, it can take a WHILE to find the tokens you need for a specific adventure. I had forknowledge of this problem, so I haven't punched anything out - save for the exact tokens I need for each session; but for people with no warning, this could get annoying. Yet the other components, especially the tiles with their exceptional artwork, are stand-out fantastic, something I've come to expect from the new Avalon Hill.
Jeremy: Much to my own chagrin, I am forced to concede that point to the both of you. (But John was nice enough to concede that he can see that the mechanics are as brutal as I say they are! =) So, in the spirit of gamesmanship and the blessed universality of ludophiles, I...er...well can't deny that somebody out there likes this junk. If in fact, in this very forum I am outnumbered 2-to-1, so I suppose I am doubly forced to admit that the group dynamic can make or break this game. But then let me ask you this: why can we have both? Reiner Knizia's Lord of the Rings is a not perfect game, and not universally liked, that's true, but no one can deny that the mechanics are original and well thought out, AND for the right group of players, Lord of the Rings the boardgame feels almost like being a part of the real Fellowship. Throw in the Sauron expansion, and you get an unbelievable sense of tension! I concede that with the right group this could be fun, but then that could be said for a lot of games -- there's probably a group of guys (like my TCG buddies Rick, Jeff, and Corwin) that I could play MONOPOLY with and have it be fun...but why not have both? Fun and good game design?
Tom: I really think that what Jeremy seeks (and all of us, I'm sure!) is the "Holy Grail" of gaming. We are still waiting for a game that is chock full of theme and flavor, while also having tremendous mechanics. Knizia's LoTR game is probably the closest I can think that actually comes to these lofty goals; but even there, you'll find people who argue that the theme is paper-thin. For now, it seems that to have a theme-filled game, you have to sacrifice some mechanics to do so and vice versa. And because of this, I wouldn't play Betrayal more than once every month or so. But when I do play it, it's an event; as long as all involved are prepared to make it so. Taken in small doses, Betrayal is like sweet, sweet fudge - great - but you can only stomach so much of it.
John: Hey! I thought we weren't allowed to make food comparisons this time! I think Jeremy does have a point - any game can be fun with the right group of people, and that doesn't necessarily mean the game is a great game. But Betrayal for me has the "right stuff" to make it a favorite. I think the fudge comparison is especially apt - this is not a game you'll want to pull out every week - but when you do, you'll crave another instantly.
Jeremy: I'm not demanding the "holy Grail" from this game; I think my point is more that theme can appear in all sorts of ways, but it's good to have a game that tries to give us something a solid design and (hopefully) something unique. Maybe Spiderman Monopoly works thematically, I don't know, but the thing is, I also don't care. It's just a tired retread of an already beaten-to-death game design. Whether one hates Knizia's Lord of the Rings or loves it, no one can deny that it is a unique game and a unique experience. Most people enjoy it, some don't, but it has given us something new and different, it is a well-designed game, and for most people it is a good thematic playing experience. I am not doubting that you both of you can enrich the atmosphere of Betrayal with the right players, but I would argue that you can do that for any number of games -- with the right group. The "right group" (and it does exist) can make anything fun (and can instantly transform a lousy horror game into something enjoyable) but all that in spite of the game, not because of token theme. For me Betrayal simply lacks as a game. Surely some game designer out there can give us something creepy and tense without just "photocopying" other games. Betrayal is fiddly, cheap, unimaginative, luck-driven, and even the much vaunted scenarios are homogenous. And don't even get me started on the quality of the rules...
Tom: Okay, I concede that the rules are fairly obtuse (and for the new Avalon Hill - this is pretty surprising.) However, I think that the fiddliness of the game, the unfairness of certain scenarios, and the blahness of the mechanics are all overcome by the theme. Without the theme in this game, you have nothing. With the theme, however, it becomes a very playable game - and almost an RPG experience that I will gladly play. The sheer variety of the scenarios, the incorporation of pretty much every horror cliche from the last fifty years, and the way the game keeps players on the edge of their seat - all this make the game fascinating in my book, and worth buying.
Jeremy: Betrayal is not a game fraught with subtleties, so extended discourse just ain't going to happen. I don't feel like I have anything to add to what I have already said: This game is old and tired, and I've seen better games in its own genre. Pass.
John: I hate to be the parrot that just repeats everything Tom says, but he keeps beating me to the punch! "Almost like an RPG" is exactly how I feel about this game - it's like playing a character without having to roll up stats. I have to admit though, Jeremy has made a lot of good points, and it's fairly obvious to me that not everyone is going to want to play this. His last comment made me question the reason I like the game so much - is it just because I really *want* to like it? I guess that's possible; but I'll continue to see this glass as half-full and enjoy it often, if not every gaming session. This rates a solid (and I believe well-deserved) 8 in my book. Not for everyone, but a great thrill for the right folks.
Tom’s rating: 8.5 out of 10
John’s rating: 8 out of 10
Jeremy’s rating: 3 out of 10
Tom Vasel is a game enthusiast currently living in Korea. He has written over 200 reviews, which can be found at www.boardgamegeek.com, and plays games solely to have fun.
Jeremy Avery writes reviews for www.funagain.com, and is the designer of www.geocities.com/yahugaming - a web page devoted to helping people learn more about 'German' games.
Our guest reviewer is:
John Snyder is a relatively new convert to the world of board games, but he has truly found his calling. After receiving Settlers as a Christmas present, he threw away the Xbox and started shipping corn almost immediately. When he's not frittering away the hours at a meaningless engineering job in Fresno, California, he enjoys pleading with the almighty to help the Houston Texans win, eating Cheez-its by the boxful, and late night Arriba! sessions with a local group who refuse to call themselves the Fresno Area Gaming Society.
| Back to the
main page! |