Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Geronimoo]

Something similar happened to me at Essen last year. We were playing a prototype of a very complex coop game and the German girl who was teaching us asked me in the middle of the game "Do you have wood?". I turned all red. The other guy at the table looked at me and we laughed. The girl and other girls we were playing with looked at us quizzically, but it was going to be too "hard" to explain. Little embarrassing.

[greatexpectations]

i dissected this clip with a few hardcore settlers playing friends a while back. cool that they mention the game but it is also frustrating to see them get things wrong.

- red has an absolutely awful strategy here. he started on 4 (brick) / 11 (wood) / ocean and 11 (wood) / 12 (sheep) / ocean.
- i'm 95% sure there is a number placed on the dessert tile
- white only has one settlement on the board
- the thief/robber is placed on a wood tile with no number tile on it
- it can also be seen that the yellow die is a 1 while the red is either a 3 or 4, cant tell. that totals to either 4 or 5. but sheldon picks up a wheat when his wheat number appears to be a 6. (but if he picks up the correct card then you don't get the shot of him reaching across the board as the camera pans out...)
- when he is building his settlement he places a card on the pile in front of him. the establishing shot at the beginning of the scene shows that the ore pile is in front of him, so either he is building a very curious settlement with ore or he puts a card in the wrong pile.

[DG]

Even the geekiest program on television can't satisfy proper geeks.

[theory]

I dunno if it really counts as geekiest -- I always felt like it was a show about geeks written by non-geeks.

In any event, Tabletop doesn't do much better with their Settlers game.  They got most or all of the rules right but their starting placements were just awful.

On the other hand, 90% of TV portrayals are inaccurate, so this is par for the course.  (Ask any doctor or lawyer if they can still watch most medical or legal shows.)  I'd rather they get boardgaming wrong than some other hobby wrong. 

[Captain_Frisk]

I dunno if it really counts as geekiest -- I always felt like it was a show about geeks written by non-geeks.

What show on TV would you consider geekier?  I'll constrain the challenge to broadcast TV, otherwise anything you pull off of G4 will win... or maybe Mythbusters.

[Teproc]

I dunno if it really counts as geekiest -- I always felt like it was a show about geeks written by non-geeks.

What show on TV would you consider geekier?  I'll constrain the challenge to broadcast TV, otherwise anything you pull off of G4 will win... or maybe Mythbusters.

Community.

Theory is right. TBBT is a show written by non-geeks, and the show is faulty imo in that it mostly laughs at the characters rather than with them.

[Captain_Frisk]

Community.

Where is that -1 button?  -1 to Greatexpectations as well. 

[greatexpectations]

Where is that -1 button?  -1 to Greatexpectations as well.

care to provide any reasoning?

[popsofctown]

I fortunately don't think of the word wood in an obscene way unless there's a reason to.

[Captain_Frisk]

Where is that -1 button?  -1 to Greatexpectations as well.

care to provide any reasoning?

I couldn't even bear to watch it on an airplane.  I also hate the office, arrested development, that stupid larry david show on hbo, and if we want to cross media, most of the songs by the pixies and citizen kane, so I may just have bad taste.

[angrybirds]

Where is that -1 button?  -1 to Greatexpectations as well.

care to provide any reasoning?

I couldn't even bear to watch it on an airplane.  I also hate the office, arrested development, that stupid larry david show on hbo, and if we want to cross media, most of the songs by the pixies and citizen kane, so I may just have bad taste.

Yes, you do

[Qvist]

I dunno if it really counts as geekiest -- I always felt like it was a show about geeks written by non-geeks.

In any event, Tabletop doesn't do much better with their Settlers game.  They got most or all of the rules right but their starting placements were just awful.

On the other hand, 90% of TV portrayals are inaccurate, so this is par for the course.  (Ask any doctor or lawyer if they can still watch most medical or legal shows.)  I'd rather they get boardgaming wrong than some other hobby wrong.

I really like TableTop and Wil Wheaton is a geek for sure.
But his guests and opponents sure aren't, they are mostly only occassional players.
Gaming with friends is about fun and not optmizing the strategy by any means.
I don't understand why this makes the show inacurrate? Maybe I did understand you wrong...

TBBT on the other hand is a show written by non-geeks, I agree. And I notice sometimes mistakes too.
The mistakes of the Setters of Catan game are really bad. But who cares?
It's still often funny and the "geek theme" is portrayed very well for non-geek viewers.
And they have geeks - like Wil Wheaton himself AFAIK - as consultant to help the writers.

If you want to watch a show from geeks for geeks, watch "The Guild".

[greatexpectations]

I couldn't even bear to watch it on an airplane.  I also hate the office, arrested development, that stupid larry david show on hbo, and if we want to cross media, most of the songs by the pixies and citizen kane, so I may just have bad taste.

ok? you seem to have an issue with a certain style of television show.  the question Teproc responded to asked for a show that could be considered geekier than BBT. i think community fits that, and apparently he does as well.  my and your opinions on the quality or humor of the show are largely irrelevant.

[WanderingWinder]

I couldn't even bear to watch it on an airplane.  I also hate the office, arrested development, that stupid larry david show on hbo, and if we want to cross media, most of the songs by the pixies and citizen kane, so I may just have bad taste.

ok? you seem to have an issue with a certain style of television show.  the question Teproc responded to asked for a show that could be considered geekier than BBT. i think community fits that, and apparently he does as well.  my and your opinions on the quality or humor of the show are largely irrelevant.

See, but I don't group these things together. I don't care for the office, more actively dislike the little of 'that stupid larry david show' that I've seen, but like Big Bang Theory (though, I don't watch it anymore; or any new show for that matter, except sports and news, but that's a different matter entirely) and REALLY like Arrested Development, though I gotta say, it really really helps to watch that one through from the beginning. It builds.

[WanderingWinder]

TBBT on the other hand is a show written by non-geeks, I agree. And I notice sometimes mistakes too.
The mistakes of the Setters of Catan game are really bad. But who cares?
It's still often funny and the "geek theme" is portrayed very well for non-geek viewers.
And they have geeks - like Wil Wheaton himself AFAIK - as consultant to help the writers.

Not sure about having 'geeks', but I do know they have science profs actually helping on the technical stuff anyway - the equations on the boards and whatnot, they apparently care about, at least according to one of them who came in town to talk about it a few years ago.

[Captain_Frisk]

I couldn't even bear to watch it on an airplane.  I also hate the office, arrested development, that stupid larry david show on hbo, and if we want to cross media, most of the songs by the pixies and citizen kane, so I may just have bad taste.

ok? you seem to have an issue with a certain style of television show.  the question Teproc responded to asked for a show that could be considered geekier than BBT. i think community fits that, and apparently he does as well.  my and your opinions on the quality or humor of the show are largely irrelevant.

I was just being a wise ass.  Sorry to ruffle feathers.

[greatexpectations]

See, but I don't group these things together. I don't care for the office, more actively dislike the little of 'that stupid larry david show' that I've seen, but like Big Bang Theory (though, I don't watch it anymore; or any new show for that matter, except sports and news, but that's a different matter entirely) and REALLY like Arrested Development, though I gotta say, it really really helps to watch that one through from the beginning. It builds.

well there are clear differences between all of those shows.  i meant it more in that they typically seem to appeal to the same types of audiences, none of which are the traditional mainstream. i would argue that most of these sorts of shows need to be watched from the beginning to be properly appreciated.  of course, this goes for just about any show, but i think that a mainstream hit (such as BBT) is designed specifically to function well in standalone episodes because of the target of having the show syndicated.

I was just being a wise ass.  Sorry to ruffle feathers.

no worries, my feathers are not currently ruffled. 

[Kirian]

Theory is right. TBBT is a show written by non-geeks, and the show is faulty imo in that it mostly laughs at the characters rather than with them.

What Teproc says here.  I actually find BBT not just faulty but somewhat offensive.  It uses geek stereotypes rather than, well, developing actual characters.  There are plenty of intelligent characters on television who are actual characters rather than just stereotypes.  Willow and Giles (from Buffy) come to mind immediately, House fits, the forensics experts on the various CSI variants.  I'm sure others can make recent suggestions, as I haven't watched TV regularly in years.

The scientists they have checking equations, etc., on BBT apparently aren't Catan players.

[jsh357]

Freaks and Geeks depicts 'geeks' pretty well, though it's obviously depicting geeks in the early 80s.  That's... probably the best example that springs to mind unless you want to extend the definition of 'geek,' in which case I could recommend several other shows.  The I.T. Crowd is a show I find highly amusing, but I can't say it's more accurate than TBBT; it just feels more like it's having fun with the concept than focusing on 'smart people are awful human beings.'

I loathe The Big Bang Theory; I find it one of the most insulting programs on television.  (Basically snowballed from "it's a show about geeks for non-geeks written by people who probably bullied geeks in middle school) [insert pages long rant about Sheldon's characterization that was getting too long-winded and venomous]

[jonts26]

I don't actively dislike TBBT, but I'm not a huge fan either. It has it's moments but it is way too standard sitcom trope heavy to really appeal to me. It's everybody loves raymond, just with some geek stereotypes instead of italian stereotypes. I do really enjoy community for how it sort of mocks those conventions, even while playing into them. I find it to be cleverly written most of the time. And it certainly takes chances with its episodes, even if they don't always work. I would say it's actually geekier than TBBT, but I'm not sure it's super geeky either. There are geekier programs that others have mentioned.

Also since were talking about good TV shows, Parks and Recs anyone?

[theory]

Parks & Recreation is one of those shows where you have to start watching from season 2 rather than season 1.

[Robz888]

Uh, geeky shows that are great, how about Fringe? My top show ever since Lost ended...

[greatexpectations]

Parks & Recreation is one of those shows where you have to start watching from season 2 rather than season 1.

probably true.  but then again i would say that people should stop watching the office after season 3 and scrubs after season 6.

[WrathOfGlod]

Peep Show is an amazing show (Mitchell and Webb)
Also Veep is really really funny

[Teproc]

Parks and Rec is awesome, although I prefer Community to it, and it's not particularly geeky. There are geekier programs than Community, such as The Guild or The It Crowd, afaik, but they're not on american network TV, which is why I gave that answer.

Also, Community is really weird and I understand people who hate it. I, for one, think it's the best comedy ever, although to be fair, I haven't seen Arrested Development yet, or Seinfeld for that matter.

Edit : Well, Fringe is actually probably the right answer, now that you mention it.

[jonts26]

So um, go watch AD. If you like community and parks and recs, you can't not like AD. And Seinfeld I would say is a must watch, but it's a bit trickier. It basically revolutionized sitcoms when it was on the air, and it's aged pretty well, but a lot of what made it so brilliant is somewhat commonplace now that much of the show might seem somewhat generic if you didn't grow up with it.

[Geronimoo]

I find Curb your Enthusiasm hilarious. When I found out Larry David wrote Seinfeld I tried to watch it, but found it really boring and just not funny (and I watched an entire season to make sure it wasn't just a few bad episodes)

[Ozle]

TBBT WAS brilliant and started off very geeky, but it gradually got diluted as it became more popular.

It used to be a show about geeks  that was full of geeky jokes. Now by the end of season 4 they are all sucessfull, have girlfriends and its more about them failing at relationships and socially awkward moments. So its basically Friends. Gah.

This is what I call Buffy Syndrome.

Any show  that would appeal to me that starts off really good, and then as it gets more popular and bigger audiences the creators run out of normal ideas and try to make thier characters 'deeper' and the easiest/best way to add another dimension to a character is with a relationship. This then gradually takes over as the focus of the show and every thing revolves around it.

[O]

So um, go watch AD. If you like community and parks and recs, you can't not like AD.

This this a thousand times this.

[Davio]

I used to love TBBT because of all the inherent geekiness.
And even in the beginning of the show, there was something for everybody.

I would laugh at all the geek and pop culture references, while my wife would laugh at the guys not understanding anything the woman was saying.

Nowadays, it's more about the relationships and less about the geek. Any geekiness they put in seems kind of forced.


Another show I loved for this reason was Chuck. Chuck and his buddy Morgan would have those funny Halo Nights or something, but the series suffered the same fate as TBBT. It became more about the relation between Chuck and Sarah and less about Chuck's nerdiness.

[Ozle]

I can't believe TBBT is done by the same people that do Two And A Half Men!

[greatexpectations]

I can't believe TBBT is done by the same people that do Two And A Half Men!

i can.

[Young Nick]

So um, go watch AD. If you like community and parks and recs, you can't not like AD.

This this a thousand times this.

But...I disagree. I have seen some (only a few episodes) of Community and all of P&R. These are cool.

I guess I don't understand why everyone loves AD so much. The humor just isn't all that great. Strange is best way I can describe it, if I were limited to one word. I find that people often say it's more "clever' or "sophisticated" than other shows that I prefer, but they always come off as condescending when doing so. Early Office is where it is at, in my opinion.

[theory]

AD is very different from other sitcoms -- it's more of a comedic experience spread across several seasons.  AD does not shine through individual episodes, but rather the series as a whole. 

That being said, I think AD falls into the so-underrated-it's-overrated category, somewhat similar to the Shawshank Redemption.  It's great, I love it, but people can be a little overboard about it.

[Kuildeous]

The mistakes of the Setters of Catan game are really bad. But who cares?

It depends on the standards of the people putting on the show. It depends on how much research you're willing to put in for the sake of verisimilitude.

I did a show of Escanaba in da Moonlight (if you haven't heard of it, I wouldn't be surprised). The plot heads toward a game of euchre. The four of us sit around a table and play a couple of hands. Every night before the show, I would stack the deck. Part of the plot is that my hand magically turns into a hand with 2s, 3s, and 4s (which is impossible in euchre). I also stacked it so that people who took tricks actually won the tricks (if you don't know euchre, imagine watching a game of Spades where someone plays the ace of spades and loses the trick). And that wasn't that easy, because even dealing a hand of euchre is a strange ritual where you deal 2 cards to every other person and 3 cards to the remainder, only to reverse the numbers.

My point? Actually, not much of one. It possible that nobody noticed. I was facing the audience, so people likely wouldn't see my cards anyway (except for when I threw the cards on the table). Still, I put forth the effort. The director put forth the effort to make sure we did it correctly. Maybe one person noticed, and he would have been impressed by how real it was.

Is it terrible if a show shows a game incorrectly? No. But it is far more impressive when it's clear they've done their homework.

[eHalcyon]

I also stacked it so that people who took tricks actually won the tricks (if you don't know euchre, imagine watching a game of Spades where someone plays the ace of spades and loses the trick).

Wait what?  I don't know Euchre but I know Spades.  So let's say you were playing Spades in the show.  Are you saying that you stacked the deck so that situations like "Ace of Spades loses" wouldn't occur, and that each hand was actually legitimate?  If so, that is awesome.

[Kirian]

I did a show of Escanaba in da Moonlight (if you haven't heard of it, I wouldn't be surprised). The plot heads toward a game of euchre. The four of us sit around a table and play a couple of hands. Every night before the show, I would stack the deck. Part of the plot is that my hand magically turns into a hand with 2s, 3s, and 4s (which is impossible in euchre).

There's no threes within 100 miles of Deer Camp!

(It's... been a while since I saw the movie, so I don't remember the exact quote.)

(Safe to assume you're from Michigan?)

Is it terrible if a show shows a game incorrectly? No. But it is far more impressive when it's clear they've done their homework.

This.  http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShownTheirWork

Are you saying that you stacked the deck so that situations like "Ace of Spades loses" wouldn't occur, and that each hand was actually legitimate?  If so, that is awesome.

I think that's what he's saying.

[Ozle]

Cant be worse than the terrible game of poker from Casino Royale!

If Bond is the best player int he service im heading over there for a game right now!

[Kuildeous]

(Safe to assume you're from Michigan?)

No, I'm not from Michigan. I had to work pretty hard on getting my yooper accent right too. It was a special little show. It's still talked about around here. Pity it was in community theatre where the reach was smaller, but we had a pretty killer cast. I had a real hard time being the straight man around those yahoos.

And yeah, I did stack the deck so that each hand was legitimate, at least until my hand mysteriously changes to illegal cards.

I read that TV Tropes article. I can imagine that some people put too much work into it that would stymie the story. My example doesn't count since I didn't actually write it. Although, I think a great example of sacrificing story for research was Moby Dick. I started to read the unabridged version. I realized why it was abridged in the first place. There is literally a section in the book where the author explains the different types of whales. I glossed over that. I put the book down and then forgot to pick it back up. I suppose I should tackle that book again, but I need to get the abridged version.

[DStu]

If Bond is the best player int he service im heading over there for a game right now!

What, you don't propose to go all in with 3,5 suited?

[jonts26]

He had 5,7 suited, which isn't bad to stay in when there's 4 players in. He flops the inside straight flush draw which gives him a lot of outs and gets the straight flush, and the nuts, on the turn. He slowplays his hand, and gets very fortunate that every other player has something very good to work with, just not as good. Obviously something like this is super contrived for movie tension purposes, but I think bond probably played the last hand about as well as he could.

EDIT: The scene in question.

[WanderingWinder]

Yes, let's analyze the effectiveness of a poker player based on ONE HAND of play. (Or like 4 randomly-selected hands or something that we see in the movie). I feel like there's a meme in here somewhere.

Seriously, if you watch TV, those pros look like they don't play so well either - they play every stinking hand! Don't they know you ought to fold most often?!

[Eevee]

He had 5,7 suited, which isn't bad to stay in when there's 4 players in. He flops the inside straight flush draw which gives him a lot of outs and gets the straight flush, and the nuts, on the turn. He slowplays his hand, and gets very fortunate that every other player has something very good to work with, just not as good. Obviously something like this is super contrived for movie tension purposes, but I think bond probably played the last hand about as well as he could.

EDIT: The scene in question.

Well, they have somehow each gotten in 6 big blinds preflop with two of the four guys leaving 5 and 6 bb's back. That, and the epic slowrolls in the end.

It is better tv that way though and they probably realized that.

[popsofctown]

Something similar happened to me at Essen last year. We were playing a prototype of a very complex coop game and the German girl who was teaching us asked me in the middle of the game "Do you have wood?". I turned all red. The other guy at the table looked at me and we laughed. The girl and other girls we were playing with looked at us quizzically, but it was going to be too "hard" to explain. Little embarrassing.

Did you?

[Ozle]

Yes, let's analyze the effectiveness of a poker player based on ONE HAND of play. (Or like 4 randomly-selected hands or something that we see in the movie). I feel like there's a meme in here somewhere.

Seriously, if you watch TV, those pros look like they don't play so well either - they play every stinking hand! Don't they know you ought to fold most often?!

Not basing it on just the one hand, basing it on his comments and the way he acts.
Basically everything adds up to him being a player that has read about playing, betting and tells on wikipedia!

And after watching a tv show i bet i could identify which ones are the Pros and which are the people that have won an online qualifier or ones that have just bought thier way in.

And seriously, if a bleeding eye is a giveaway im pretty sure that a LOT of people notice it, not an unusual occurence!

And if you are basing your reads on actual phsical tells then you are not going to get very far!

[WanderingWinder]

Yes, let's analyze the effectiveness of a poker player based on ONE HAND of play. (Or like 4 randomly-selected hands or something that we see in the movie). I feel like there's a meme in here somewhere.

Seriously, if you watch TV, those pros look like they don't play so well either - they play every stinking hand! Don't they know you ought to fold most often?!

Not basing it on just the one hand, basing it on his comments and the way he acts.
Basically everything adds up to him being a player that has read about playing, betting and tells on wikipedia!

And after watching a tv show i bet i could identify which ones are the Pros and which are the people that have won an online qualifier or ones that have just bought thier way in.

And seriously, if a bleeding eye is a giveaway im pretty sure that a LOT of people notice it, not an unusual occurence!

And if you are basing your reads on actual phsical tells then you are not going to get very far!

Yeah, because poker players lay out all their strategy in words, totally honestly, and don't keep things to themselves

Seriously guys, it's a movie. They're not going to be totally accurate. You remind me of people who will watch some random medieval action slog and shout about those kind of catapult balls that are flying around in the background having been first used 50 years later.

[Captain_Frisk]

Did you?

Seriously - enough talk about james bond poker... lets get this back on track. As pops asks, Did you, and if so, did you poker?

[Ozle]

Yes, let's analyze the effectiveness of a poker player based on ONE HAND of play. (Or like 4 randomly-selected hands or something that we see in the movie). I feel like there's a meme in here somewhere.

Seriously, if you watch TV, those pros look like they don't play so well either - they play every stinking hand! Don't they know you ought to fold most often?!

Not basing it on just the one hand, basing it on his comments and the way he acts.
Basically everything adds up to him being a player that has read about playing, betting and tells on wikipedia!

And after watching a tv show i bet i could identify which ones are the Pros and which are the people that have won an online qualifier or ones that have just bought thier way in.

And seriously, if a bleeding eye is a giveaway im pretty sure that a LOT of people notice it, not an unusual occurence!

And if you are basing your reads on actual phsical tells then you are not going to get very far!

Yeah, because poker players lay out all their strategy in words, totally honestly, and don't keep things to themselves

Seriously guys, it's a movie. They're not going to be totally accurate. You remind me of people who will watch some random medieval action slog and shout about those kind of catapult balls that are flying around in the background having been first used 50 years later.

Yes of course I know its a movie, and I know the way they did it is probably one of the better ways to show it to a largely non-poker fan base.

But that doesn't make it any less terrible and a relevant example to this thread.

[Ozle]

Did you?

Seriously - enough talk about james bond poker... lets get this back on track. As pops asks, Did you, and if so, did you poker?

Pics or it didn't happen! Oh wait, wrong board....

[shMerker]

The worst for sacrificing entertainment to research was S. Morganstern. In the middle of a chase scene in a forest he would digress for 70 pages to talk about the kinds of trees the heroine was running past! I know he wrote historical fiction and it helps put the scene in context but really? 70 pages?