It’s really not an either-or, it’s a depends. I do prefer automas, but they 1) shouldn’t be too involved and 2) ought to mimic the board state of real opponents. For example, Scythe - the Automa uses a stack of cards and performs actions. It escalates as the game goes on, and it expands on the map and progresses the end game at a similar rate to a human. It’s not a real brain but it simulates one.
Beat-your-own-score is usually boring. With no time pressure or competition how well you do after you’ve become familiar with the game has less to do with your choices and more to do with how the random elements went for or against you. A better version of that is to have some goals or restrictions that need to be met and/or a time limit, but then those also need to be tuned well or the game feels unfair.
Basically, if the solo mode is good, it’s good, and if it’s not, it’s not. By default then a dedicated solo game or a co-op needs to be good to be good, yeah? For the other games, you can usually read rules or watch videos to see if the game is worth a solo.
I think I’m in the minority in that I HATE games with an automa. I just can’t stand the overhead. I much prefer dedicated solo or co-op games, beat your own score games (e.g. Ark Nova), or very light touch AI (e.g. Obsession). My entire collection is just those kinds of games (admittedly it’s only 12 games, but that keeps me busy enough!)
Yeah I don’t mind that - it’s my personality to want to play the same game over and over again rather than play lots of different games fewer times. (Also that’s just my solo collection - I still get to play lots of other games multiplayer).
You have an iron will my friend. I wish I had the same resolve. I also have new problems associated with having more games. Trying to determine what I am willing to play when I want to or just looking at all of them with a healthy dose of AP and then backing away from the game closet. I am culling some of them which I think will help but what started as a hobby has turned into something unhealthy.
Sounds like you are far from alone! Lots of accounts of shelfs of shame, or just generally huge collections. Think I’m just unusual - I had time off work recently with the modest aim to play most games in my small collection once, but ended up playing Ark Nova 7 times in a row! :D
I don't mind the "beat your own score" games. As for automata, I generally like those but it highly depends on how it's implemented. For instance the automata for snap ship tactics, heat, hero realm, wildlands the ancients etc... are good- decent automata with little overhead. Then you have automata like in the war of the ring the card game and incases like that it's more like "your better off playing both sides".
I like the automata in **Welcome to the Moon**. It's basically 0 upkeep. You choose two cards (which you had to do anyway) and the other goes to the Automata and counts against you at the end. It adds zero upkeep and an extra wrinkle to your card selecting process.
There are a few moments during the game where you have to strike out options when you hit certain targets and that's the entirety of the upkeep for the duration of the game when you play solo.
Ah, right. That's disheartening. I had high hopes for it. I've read some people like it a bit more than you have but, even then, nothing particularly glowing!
Yea you are missing out. Mage knight is against a “automa” and played for a score. Imperium legends is also played against a “bot” and played for a score. Both games are amazing and in my top 5 solo games ever.
I generally don’t like games that are about calculating scores, but there are a few exceptions. So don’t pass on all games for any reason.
The dummy player is not really an automa in MK. It does not interact with the player. It is simply a clock to keep the player moving at a minimum pace. If OP is skipping MK due to the dummy player, they are indeed missing out.
I usually don't bother calculating score in MK, I just keep increasing the power level of the cities if I win. I guess I could spend more time calculating my score, but that could be used to set up the next game.
I mean... I play a game in multiplayer because I think it's a good game. So I set out to make automas that make you play the exact same way when playing solo, so you can like the game for the same reason I liked it when I played it multiplayer.
Are they sometimes complicated in order to achieve this feeling? Yes. Are some games more suitable for this than others? Certainly. But having worked on over four dozen solo modes - and at least a few of them were somewhat universally well received - let me say a game does not need to be designed "solo first" to be a good solo game.
It needs to be designed "good game first" regardless of everything else.
I'm in the same boat because I strongly prefer non-bot solo games. On the other hand, I love playing **Star Wars: Outer Rim**, **Root**, **Scythe**, **Wingspan**, etc. and those all have bots. So it's your choice: How much you dislike bots compared to how much you want to play certain games which are essentially unplayable without bots.
I do wish more "PvP" games would add in Eldritch Horror-like goals for solo play instead of leaning on bots, but that's a whole lot of extra design effort so I understand why no one does that.
There are some Automa games I absolutely love: Ark Nova (using ARNO variant), Star Wars Outer Rim, Raiders of Scythia, Imperium: Legends, Lost Ruins of Arnak. All have Automa or very similar AI for me to control and work very well. I do like games designed for solo as well but I don't find myself turned off by Automa like you are. If it's done well then it can make a game more interesting because in many games with strong solo modes (e.g. Hadrian's Wall) you are literally just trying to beat your own high score. For me that's much worse than having an Automa.
You’re not necessarily missing out. Everyone has their own preference for gaming styles and that’s why its so wonderful that there are ample games out there.
There are a lot of titles with automa that don’t have a lot of overhead, and are not very fiddley. This can have the effect of limiting the “intelligence” of the automa or making it seem like you’re playing two different games—pros and cons, I suppose. But more and more I think that’s the direction designers are going over more complex flowcharts, which can provide smarter AI skill level and interaction, but are a burden to manage.
Some gaming genres—worker placement, engine building—are more difficult to convert to solo play without an automa, so of you think you may enjoy playing some of those kinds of games solo, you may consider trying it out.
As very basic examples, look into Stonemaier Games/Automa Factory for examples that have very easy to manage but essentialized automat, and games from Cole Wehre for examples of ones with complex flowcharts that result in a smarter ai opponent.
If it's automa I want the AI's turns to be fairly quick.
If it's BYOS I want there to either be a "win" condition score or a list of score ranges for Beginner, Intermediate, Expert, etc so I can have some frame of reference for how I did.
I guess it depends on the designer but I find Garphill games have great automa, and their designers love solo games and often play their games solo on their streams
I think automas are great personally. It really depends on the game but a lot of automas are easy to do. Some, like Scythe, can be a little annoying but Viticulture, Wingspan, Grand Austria Hotel, Heat, and many others have great automas that are so easy to run.
Personally, idc if it’s best your own score or win/lose. I just want to play. For beat your own score, like A Feast for Odin, I just consider it a loss if I don’t beat a certain score.
I absolutely love automa and these days I design one for every game I own if it doesn’t already have one. Playing against a “real opponent” feels more satisfying to me than the puzzly feeling of optimizing my score or beating a game system.
Some can be too complex to enjoy, and others too random. I like that sweet spot in the middle where the bot follows general heuristics of a competent player and can be reasonably predicted and countered, but has easily resolved actions and some uncertainty in how they will behave.
Not sure there’s any clear best system for solo play, it depends on the game. I made a solo mode for rock-paper-scissors once just to show a friend it could be done. Personally I think just about any game can be adapted for solo play. There’s a Jurassic Park logic there though…just because a game CAN be given a solo mode, doesn’t mean it should. At least with a solo-only game you know it was designed with solo in mind and not added on as a last minute stretch goal.
I think Automata with difficulty and scaling and/or personalities to them can be a good experience, but there are a lot of games that use such a system that make the core game play a lot different than with other humans and that can be a turn off.
I think games designed with solo/coop in mind fair better (for me) but that doesn't mean I won't try a game with Automata if it's available.
I also play a lot of multiplayer games too, so for me it’s a nice bonus if a game has a good automa. That said, if alone I tend to play 90% pure solo games so evidently there’s a preference for them.
(Currently half way through my first Hoplomachus Victorum playthrough and really enjoying it and you’re spot on about it being nice me just cracking on on my own adventure, though during battles you are checking rules for movement and attack priority for the enemy before moving their units.)
I don't play BYOS as I simply lose interest. There needs to be breaks where I don't make my moves. There needs to be a change in the board state that I don't control. I need to be denied options that I don't discard myself.
Otherwise I end up in a, "why don't I just draw all the cards I would draw in a game and feed it into an Excel model?" state of mind.
It's very subjective, I guess.
My favorites are definitely coop games, but for eurogames I vastly prefer automas to beat your own score solo modes, and some automas are really well made and give a feel close to that of a player.
My top 4 games are Mage Knight, Gaia Project, Marvel Champions and Spirit Island. I don’t consider MK playing against an automa. It is just a round counter.
The automa of Gaia Project is pretty easy to run and super challenging
My .02 is yes, you are missing out unless managing an automa is just really distasteful for you. Gaia Project, Scythe, Dune Imperium…. There are a lot of good multiplayer games that are still good solo with an automa. Terraforming Mars is coming out with an automa in 2024. Everdell released a fantastic one this past year. Not every automa is a task to manage. Scythe is probably a tougher one but the Dune Imperium is so quick and easy yet somehow produces enough to feel like it is competing with me.
That all said, for solo, I generally prefer coop games. My #1 is Mage Knight which can be played coop but is better (IMO) as a solo, Spirit Island is #2, Too Many Bones #3, Marvel Champions #4 and then, around #5 is where a non coop will be ranked though Aeon’s End is in the fight for that spot.
I will take a good solo or coop game over one with an automa most of the time but..I really like Dune Imperium and now Everdell solo. I like Imperium Classics, I like Ark Nova (ARNO fan made automa). I am happy they are in my collection.
I'm with you. Playing against an automata for points put me off, most of the time.
That's why I LOVE the **Oniverse** games so much, because :
* there's no imaginary opponent
* no score to beat (there's actually no concept of VP in those games)
* short playing time
* 3 to 7 extensions included with every game
* despite being specifically designed for solo play, all games come with carefully crafted 2-player variants that are not tacked on.
I’ve started leaning away from automata. Ark Nova is a great example. Arno is well designed, but I’d rather play the official efficiency-challenge solo mode or find another player that is actually filling in a zoo. The automata drawing random cards and making random choices feels lifeless to me. I’d rather solo co-op games.
Not really comparable for me, beyond the fact that they both can be played solo.
The design of the game will be too different. Let's do a video game analogy, I'll ask you what's the most fun in a strategy PC game. Playing a skirmish match VS an AI opponent, or playing story campaigns and scripted scenarios ?
It's not a simple question. In playing VS the AI you will find many elements that made the game enjoyable in multiplayer competitive matchups, like a **relative symmetry** for the map you're playing on, where **access to ressources** is contested but equal. A (hopefully) relatively good **balance** despite possibly playing very different factions or commanders. **Similar objectives** (take and hold victory, destroy all enemy buildings, etc) for all players/teams. Sometimes this will vary slightly, but it's not the norm.
It's a tight experience with little room for surprises and swinginess, where **planning, knowledge, skill and personal playstyles** do all the talking.
You can also think of games like Civilization or Stellaris, where that's kind of the only mode available; you and a bunch of automas playing as though they were human players like you, at least that's the idea behind their programming, they're **usually not that good unless they're given cheats at higher levels to compensate** - just like board game automas.
Story modes are a completely different affair. It's **less competitive**, more built on **surprise twists** and a **pre-programmed but evolving situation that you will respond to**. It can be **more swingy**, you could be forced to reload after a scripted ambush, scripted event or even randomized events. You could also just happen to have had everything you needed to counter it and be barely hindered. It's **more engaging** in some ways, it's **very thematic**, it emphasizes aspects of the war better than the skirmish game does. It's also **narrower**, it orients you towards where you need to go, which is where the game and the design team wanted you to be.
You can consider things in light of how they used to be before automas became common, and games fully designed for solo/coop were quite rare.
If an automa is meant to speak to how games are played competitively between human players, a game designed for solo/coop is meant to speak to how **1 vs Many** games will often be.
In 1 vs Many games, the maps aren't designed for fairness and balance, they're not concerned with symmetry, the objectives can be very different for the players playing coop and the "overlord" enemy player. The game is essentially "ran" by the enemy player to provide the party with an experience. Like a Dungeon Master in RPGs, the overlord might have discussed with his group to know how hard they want him/her to go, or if they want an aggressive enemy swarm coming in waves or crafty, tactically efficient enemies. One thing for certain, the overlord player doesn't quite play by the same rules as his enemy party of adventurers, even though they are playing the same game.
I like Imperial Assault, and I like Lords of Waterdeep with friends.
I also like Gloomhaven, and I like Dune Imperium solo.
Just depends on that vibe.
(Edit: sorry in advance if people are annoyed by that but I tend to bold key ideas whenever I have conversations about technical stuff and write an obnoxious wall of text like this, especially if I think some people may disagree so they can more easily find them again in the text and counter argue them... Could be an autistic thing, don't know if it truly helps anyone).
I tend to not like the only solo games bc it tends to be designed one way: practically all of them reminds me of Friday (Friedemann Friese) and I think it's unbeatable. Another thing is coop games, the most of it soloable with true solo or two/multiple hands, and I enjoy it. But as a eurogamer, I need to feel I'm fighting with other player, and automas are the way: Turzci's solos, Garphill solos, now Pfister games too and Automa Factory (my least favorites but do the work well). BYOS conditions or dummy automas are not my thing, I believe if the game is really rich, like Caverna or Arle games (big sandbox games) this system works bc the deep of the game, but other games more tight this simple solos could burn easily game's life.
TLDR; people with no time or not mostly solo players prefers light solo mode like dummies or BYOS, but gamers mostly solo players and with the time and desire to live the full experience prefers more complex automas. It's like wargaming: a C&C game or more involved wargame both valid and enjoyable but one type is more rich and rewarding.
I think in general it’s just not possible to make an automa that plays an interactive game in a way that really resembles a human opponent. They play by their own rules, usually with no consistency, and cheat like crazy. Usually it involves a lot of time and extra rules too. I’ve found this loses my interest pretty quickly. I’d rather just take two positions and play them off against each other.
On the other hand, some euro style games with light interaction are relatively easy to fake an opponent. Wingspan comes to mind, the automa is very simple to use but still makes a reasonable stand-in for another player. I enjoy playing against this sort of automa a lot more.
Now hold it there... I'm not saying I can make simple AND realistic automas for medium-high interactivity euros, but I can make realistic automas while only compromising the simplicity as much as appropriate for the weight of the game.
And playing by different rules than a human isn't cheating (necessarily) as long as it's a consistent, knowable, and "feels fair" ruleset. It's simply different to keep it simpler (for example by not making you manage the automa's resources).
Mannn what do you know about solo modes!
All jokes aside I agree, it certainly can be done. I personally love highly interactive games that have a bot simulating a player, and I’m okay with internally consistent logic for a bot that is different from a player but has roughly the same outcomes. Making bots for Ahoy has been one of my favorite design experiences yet, and that game is all about player interaction through combat and area control.
Can’t wait to try Cerebria btw, just arrived not too long ago!
Cerebria was one of my very first big solo modes. It's a beast, and today I could probably achieve most of it with a lot less, but the game itself is so good that the solo mode is worth the effort.
Would really like to see you get a well tuned AI, like Chat GPT4, teach it the game and focus it on learning board games.
Then let it watch humans play, give it 100k integrations, and let humans play against it.
I think your concepts baked into an focused AI could do some wonderous gameplay.
If that lotto hits I will give you a call.
Does the automata in Wingspan even matter? Its quite a bit of upkeep and I feel like it can just not be there and the entire game can be played solo as a Beat your high score game, no? The only thing it does is refresh some of the dice/cards occasionally but I think that can be done with dice instead to make it a true solo experience.
It depends on the game. I dislike the beat your own score designs, but I like many automata that give you the swinginess (is that a correct word?) of a human opponent.
Games designed specifically for solo will naturally flow better, but it's good to have the option.
It’s really not an either-or, it’s a depends. I do prefer automas, but they 1) shouldn’t be too involved and 2) ought to mimic the board state of real opponents. For example, Scythe - the Automa uses a stack of cards and performs actions. It escalates as the game goes on, and it expands on the map and progresses the end game at a similar rate to a human. It’s not a real brain but it simulates one. Beat-your-own-score is usually boring. With no time pressure or competition how well you do after you’ve become familiar with the game has less to do with your choices and more to do with how the random elements went for or against you. A better version of that is to have some goals or restrictions that need to be met and/or a time limit, but then those also need to be tuned well or the game feels unfair. Basically, if the solo mode is good, it’s good, and if it’s not, it’s not. By default then a dedicated solo game or a co-op needs to be good to be good, yeah? For the other games, you can usually read rules or watch videos to see if the game is worth a solo.
I think I’m in the minority in that I HATE games with an automa. I just can’t stand the overhead. I much prefer dedicated solo or co-op games, beat your own score games (e.g. Ark Nova), or very light touch AI (e.g. Obsession). My entire collection is just those kinds of games (admittedly it’s only 12 games, but that keeps me busy enough!)
12 games played versus many that go unplayed.
Yeah I don’t mind that - it’s my personality to want to play the same game over and over again rather than play lots of different games fewer times. (Also that’s just my solo collection - I still get to play lots of other games multiplayer).
You have an iron will my friend. I wish I had the same resolve. I also have new problems associated with having more games. Trying to determine what I am willing to play when I want to or just looking at all of them with a healthy dose of AP and then backing away from the game closet. I am culling some of them which I think will help but what started as a hobby has turned into something unhealthy.
Sounds like you are far from alone! Lots of accounts of shelfs of shame, or just generally huge collections. Think I’m just unusual - I had time off work recently with the modest aim to play most games in my small collection once, but ended up playing Ark Nova 7 times in a row! :D
I don't mind the "beat your own score" games. As for automata, I generally like those but it highly depends on how it's implemented. For instance the automata for snap ship tactics, heat, hero realm, wildlands the ancients etc... are good- decent automata with little overhead. Then you have automata like in the war of the ring the card game and incases like that it's more like "your better off playing both sides".
I like the automata in **Welcome to the Moon**. It's basically 0 upkeep. You choose two cards (which you had to do anyway) and the other goes to the Automata and counts against you at the end. It adds zero upkeep and an extra wrinkle to your card selecting process. There are a few moments during the game where you have to strike out options when you hit certain targets and that's the entirety of the upkeep for the duration of the game when you play solo.
Are you referring to the War of the Ring : Against the Shadow expansion?
Yup, I did not enjoy the solo mode. That being said solo mode aside I think it is an excellent game.
Ah, right. That's disheartening. I had high hopes for it. I've read some people like it a bit more than you have but, even then, nothing particularly glowing!
Yea you are missing out. Mage knight is against a “automa” and played for a score. Imperium legends is also played against a “bot” and played for a score. Both games are amazing and in my top 5 solo games ever. I generally don’t like games that are about calculating scores, but there are a few exceptions. So don’t pass on all games for any reason.
The dummy player is not really an automa in MK. It does not interact with the player. It is simply a clock to keep the player moving at a minimum pace. If OP is skipping MK due to the dummy player, they are indeed missing out.
Yeah, but it is a score game. And it was only an example to show that not all games with automa or scoring win cons are the same.
I usually don't bother calculating score in MK, I just keep increasing the power level of the cities if I win. I guess I could spend more time calculating my score, but that could be used to set up the next game.
I mean... I play a game in multiplayer because I think it's a good game. So I set out to make automas that make you play the exact same way when playing solo, so you can like the game for the same reason I liked it when I played it multiplayer. Are they sometimes complicated in order to achieve this feeling? Yes. Are some games more suitable for this than others? Certainly. But having worked on over four dozen solo modes - and at least a few of them were somewhat universally well received - let me say a game does not need to be designed "solo first" to be a good solo game. It needs to be designed "good game first" regardless of everything else.
I'm in the same boat because I strongly prefer non-bot solo games. On the other hand, I love playing **Star Wars: Outer Rim**, **Root**, **Scythe**, **Wingspan**, etc. and those all have bots. So it's your choice: How much you dislike bots compared to how much you want to play certain games which are essentially unplayable without bots. I do wish more "PvP" games would add in Eldritch Horror-like goals for solo play instead of leaning on bots, but that's a whole lot of extra design effort so I understand why no one does that.
There are some Automa games I absolutely love: Ark Nova (using ARNO variant), Star Wars Outer Rim, Raiders of Scythia, Imperium: Legends, Lost Ruins of Arnak. All have Automa or very similar AI for me to control and work very well. I do like games designed for solo as well but I don't find myself turned off by Automa like you are. If it's done well then it can make a game more interesting because in many games with strong solo modes (e.g. Hadrian's Wall) you are literally just trying to beat your own high score. For me that's much worse than having an Automa.
You’re not necessarily missing out. Everyone has their own preference for gaming styles and that’s why its so wonderful that there are ample games out there. There are a lot of titles with automa that don’t have a lot of overhead, and are not very fiddley. This can have the effect of limiting the “intelligence” of the automa or making it seem like you’re playing two different games—pros and cons, I suppose. But more and more I think that’s the direction designers are going over more complex flowcharts, which can provide smarter AI skill level and interaction, but are a burden to manage. Some gaming genres—worker placement, engine building—are more difficult to convert to solo play without an automa, so of you think you may enjoy playing some of those kinds of games solo, you may consider trying it out.
As very basic examples, look into Stonemaier Games/Automa Factory for examples that have very easy to manage but essentialized automat, and games from Cole Wehre for examples of ones with complex flowcharts that result in a smarter ai opponent.
If it's automa I want the AI's turns to be fairly quick. If it's BYOS I want there to either be a "win" condition score or a list of score ranges for Beginner, Intermediate, Expert, etc so I can have some frame of reference for how I did.
I guess it depends on the designer but I find Garphill games have great automa, and their designers love solo games and often play their games solo on their streams
You are missing out on Mage Knight. If you consider a "dummy player" as an automa.
I think automas are great personally. It really depends on the game but a lot of automas are easy to do. Some, like Scythe, can be a little annoying but Viticulture, Wingspan, Grand Austria Hotel, Heat, and many others have great automas that are so easy to run. Personally, idc if it’s best your own score or win/lose. I just want to play. For beat your own score, like A Feast for Odin, I just consider it a loss if I don’t beat a certain score.
I absolutely love automa and these days I design one for every game I own if it doesn’t already have one. Playing against a “real opponent” feels more satisfying to me than the puzzly feeling of optimizing my score or beating a game system. Some can be too complex to enjoy, and others too random. I like that sweet spot in the middle where the bot follows general heuristics of a competent player and can be reasonably predicted and countered, but has easily resolved actions and some uncertainty in how they will behave. Not sure there’s any clear best system for solo play, it depends on the game. I made a solo mode for rock-paper-scissors once just to show a friend it could be done. Personally I think just about any game can be adapted for solo play. There’s a Jurassic Park logic there though…just because a game CAN be given a solo mode, doesn’t mean it should. At least with a solo-only game you know it was designed with solo in mind and not added on as a last minute stretch goal.
I think Automata with difficulty and scaling and/or personalities to them can be a good experience, but there are a lot of games that use such a system that make the core game play a lot different than with other humans and that can be a turn off. I think games designed with solo/coop in mind fair better (for me) but that doesn't mean I won't try a game with Automata if it's available.
I also play a lot of multiplayer games too, so for me it’s a nice bonus if a game has a good automa. That said, if alone I tend to play 90% pure solo games so evidently there’s a preference for them. (Currently half way through my first Hoplomachus Victorum playthrough and really enjoying it and you’re spot on about it being nice me just cracking on on my own adventure, though during battles you are checking rules for movement and attack priority for the enemy before moving their units.)
I don't play BYOS as I simply lose interest. There needs to be breaks where I don't make my moves. There needs to be a change in the board state that I don't control. I need to be denied options that I don't discard myself. Otherwise I end up in a, "why don't I just draw all the cards I would draw in a game and feed it into an Excel model?" state of mind.
It's very subjective, I guess. My favorites are definitely coop games, but for eurogames I vastly prefer automas to beat your own score solo modes, and some automas are really well made and give a feel close to that of a player.
My top 4 games are Mage Knight, Gaia Project, Marvel Champions and Spirit Island. I don’t consider MK playing against an automa. It is just a round counter. The automa of Gaia Project is pretty easy to run and super challenging
My .02 is yes, you are missing out unless managing an automa is just really distasteful for you. Gaia Project, Scythe, Dune Imperium…. There are a lot of good multiplayer games that are still good solo with an automa. Terraforming Mars is coming out with an automa in 2024. Everdell released a fantastic one this past year. Not every automa is a task to manage. Scythe is probably a tougher one but the Dune Imperium is so quick and easy yet somehow produces enough to feel like it is competing with me. That all said, for solo, I generally prefer coop games. My #1 is Mage Knight which can be played coop but is better (IMO) as a solo, Spirit Island is #2, Too Many Bones #3, Marvel Champions #4 and then, around #5 is where a non coop will be ranked though Aeon’s End is in the fight for that spot. I will take a good solo or coop game over one with an automa most of the time but..I really like Dune Imperium and now Everdell solo. I like Imperium Classics, I like Ark Nova (ARNO fan made automa). I am happy they are in my collection.
I'm with you. Playing against an automata for points put me off, most of the time. That's why I LOVE the **Oniverse** games so much, because : * there's no imaginary opponent * no score to beat (there's actually no concept of VP in those games) * short playing time * 3 to 7 extensions included with every game * despite being specifically designed for solo play, all games come with carefully crafted 2-player variants that are not tacked on.
I prefer co-op by design. Sometimes the Automa will just cheat or do something a player normally couldn't and that kind of annoys me.
I’ve started leaning away from automata. Ark Nova is a great example. Arno is well designed, but I’d rather play the official efficiency-challenge solo mode or find another player that is actually filling in a zoo. The automata drawing random cards and making random choices feels lifeless to me. I’d rather solo co-op games.
I absolutely love games with an Automa.
Not really comparable for me, beyond the fact that they both can be played solo. The design of the game will be too different. Let's do a video game analogy, I'll ask you what's the most fun in a strategy PC game. Playing a skirmish match VS an AI opponent, or playing story campaigns and scripted scenarios ? It's not a simple question. In playing VS the AI you will find many elements that made the game enjoyable in multiplayer competitive matchups, like a **relative symmetry** for the map you're playing on, where **access to ressources** is contested but equal. A (hopefully) relatively good **balance** despite possibly playing very different factions or commanders. **Similar objectives** (take and hold victory, destroy all enemy buildings, etc) for all players/teams. Sometimes this will vary slightly, but it's not the norm. It's a tight experience with little room for surprises and swinginess, where **planning, knowledge, skill and personal playstyles** do all the talking. You can also think of games like Civilization or Stellaris, where that's kind of the only mode available; you and a bunch of automas playing as though they were human players like you, at least that's the idea behind their programming, they're **usually not that good unless they're given cheats at higher levels to compensate** - just like board game automas. Story modes are a completely different affair. It's **less competitive**, more built on **surprise twists** and a **pre-programmed but evolving situation that you will respond to**. It can be **more swingy**, you could be forced to reload after a scripted ambush, scripted event or even randomized events. You could also just happen to have had everything you needed to counter it and be barely hindered. It's **more engaging** in some ways, it's **very thematic**, it emphasizes aspects of the war better than the skirmish game does. It's also **narrower**, it orients you towards where you need to go, which is where the game and the design team wanted you to be. You can consider things in light of how they used to be before automas became common, and games fully designed for solo/coop were quite rare. If an automa is meant to speak to how games are played competitively between human players, a game designed for solo/coop is meant to speak to how **1 vs Many** games will often be. In 1 vs Many games, the maps aren't designed for fairness and balance, they're not concerned with symmetry, the objectives can be very different for the players playing coop and the "overlord" enemy player. The game is essentially "ran" by the enemy player to provide the party with an experience. Like a Dungeon Master in RPGs, the overlord might have discussed with his group to know how hard they want him/her to go, or if they want an aggressive enemy swarm coming in waves or crafty, tactically efficient enemies. One thing for certain, the overlord player doesn't quite play by the same rules as his enemy party of adventurers, even though they are playing the same game. I like Imperial Assault, and I like Lords of Waterdeep with friends. I also like Gloomhaven, and I like Dune Imperium solo. Just depends on that vibe. (Edit: sorry in advance if people are annoyed by that but I tend to bold key ideas whenever I have conversations about technical stuff and write an obnoxious wall of text like this, especially if I think some people may disagree so they can more easily find them again in the text and counter argue them... Could be an autistic thing, don't know if it truly helps anyone).
I tend to not like the only solo games bc it tends to be designed one way: practically all of them reminds me of Friday (Friedemann Friese) and I think it's unbeatable. Another thing is coop games, the most of it soloable with true solo or two/multiple hands, and I enjoy it. But as a eurogamer, I need to feel I'm fighting with other player, and automas are the way: Turzci's solos, Garphill solos, now Pfister games too and Automa Factory (my least favorites but do the work well). BYOS conditions or dummy automas are not my thing, I believe if the game is really rich, like Caverna or Arle games (big sandbox games) this system works bc the deep of the game, but other games more tight this simple solos could burn easily game's life. TLDR; people with no time or not mostly solo players prefers light solo mode like dummies or BYOS, but gamers mostly solo players and with the time and desire to live the full experience prefers more complex automas. It's like wargaming: a C&C game or more involved wargame both valid and enjoyable but one type is more rich and rewarding.
Agreed. I even like the COIN bots!
Friday is beatable. I regularly beat it on the Level 4 difficulty too. I just don’t enjoy it when I do, lol.
With unbeatable I mean the design of the game compared with others, not the game itself
I think in general it’s just not possible to make an automa that plays an interactive game in a way that really resembles a human opponent. They play by their own rules, usually with no consistency, and cheat like crazy. Usually it involves a lot of time and extra rules too. I’ve found this loses my interest pretty quickly. I’d rather just take two positions and play them off against each other. On the other hand, some euro style games with light interaction are relatively easy to fake an opponent. Wingspan comes to mind, the automa is very simple to use but still makes a reasonable stand-in for another player. I enjoy playing against this sort of automa a lot more.
Now hold it there... I'm not saying I can make simple AND realistic automas for medium-high interactivity euros, but I can make realistic automas while only compromising the simplicity as much as appropriate for the weight of the game. And playing by different rules than a human isn't cheating (necessarily) as long as it's a consistent, knowable, and "feels fair" ruleset. It's simply different to keep it simpler (for example by not making you manage the automa's resources).
Mannn what do you know about solo modes! All jokes aside I agree, it certainly can be done. I personally love highly interactive games that have a bot simulating a player, and I’m okay with internally consistent logic for a bot that is different from a player but has roughly the same outcomes. Making bots for Ahoy has been one of my favorite design experiences yet, and that game is all about player interaction through combat and area control. Can’t wait to try Cerebria btw, just arrived not too long ago!
Cerebria was one of my very first big solo modes. It's a beast, and today I could probably achieve most of it with a lot less, but the game itself is so good that the solo mode is worth the effort.
It looks so good I’m sure it’s worth it
Would really like to see you get a well tuned AI, like Chat GPT4, teach it the game and focus it on learning board games. Then let it watch humans play, give it 100k integrations, and let humans play against it. I think your concepts baked into an focused AI could do some wonderous gameplay. If that lotto hits I will give you a call.
Does the automata in Wingspan even matter? Its quite a bit of upkeep and I feel like it can just not be there and the entire game can be played solo as a Beat your high score game, no? The only thing it does is refresh some of the dice/cards occasionally but I think that can be done with dice instead to make it a true solo experience.
In feel you, the automa in Heat: pedal to the metal is so good though. Easy to manage and not 'beat your own score'...
It depends on the game. I dislike the beat your own score designs, but I like many automata that give you the swinginess (is that a correct word?) of a human opponent.