It is really amazing how Alex, Denny and Paul always manage to come up with arguments and economics theories about the gameplay of some board games, especially those that involve the use of some form of game currency! Usually, one of them will go, "No! You should not spend so much on that, given , your expected returns will…" Then some form of discussion will ensue. All the programmer (Me) is able to do is to watch on, amused and bemused by the fuss.

Aside from the usual ones, we played 2 new games at Settlers Cafe tonight (10/9/2005), Santiago and Shadows Over Camelot. I felt Santiago was only so-so but the others thought otherwise of it. Well, the fun part came towards the end of the game when Denny decided to make sacrificial moves to deny the other players from earning more money by spending large amounts of his own money (Yes, this was the game that started today’s economics debate)!

I really liked Shadows Over Camelot because it was a fantasy-theme board game with role-playing and quest-completing elements in it. These sort of games always appeal to me =) The biggest problem with the game however was that the game rules made it such that those playing the role of the good guys lose most of the time! In fact, the café staff declared that eighty percent of the time, he lost the game! Nevertheless, I had loads of fun, playing the "Loyal" knight and the "Traitor" on separate rounds.

I love board games and I love them even more when I play them with friends!

Advertisement