Gaming

So, wait a minute...

The Nintendo 2ds is about $100 cheaper than the Nintendo 3ds, but it plays all the same games and the only differences are:

It has a weaker graphics thingy whatnot (which I don't care about)

It only has a mono speaker which isn't as good as the other speakers (which I don't care about)

It doesn't fold up like a clamshell (which would be nice, but it's not a deal breaker - and it does improve the structural integrity)

It doesn't have 3D capabilities (which I don't want - if I got the 3ds I'd turn that off, so it's a waste of tech)...

That sounds like a pretty good deal, to me.

I wonder if it plays old knock-off games from the 1980s?  My favourite game when I was a kid was a cheap Donkey Kong rip-off called Jungle Kong.

Poker Duel

These are the rules for Poker Duel, a poker-based game for two players:

Poker Duel

Start with a normal 52 card deck.  Shuffle and cut for highest card to determine who deals first.

Dealer deals each player 15 cards and places the remainder of the deck face-down in the middle of the playing space on his/her left.

Players arrange their cards into three poker hands, then put them face down in front of them in a line of three.

Players pick up the hands closest to the deck for the first round of the duel.  They are each allowed to replace two cards from their hand with two cards from the deck, but must take turns doing so.  The first option goes to the player who did not deal.  Keeping within the principles of poker, players must throw out a card before picking up a replacement – they cannot see the card they are picking up first, but must take their chances.

They may choose to “stand” on the cards they have if they do not wish to change.

After they have both had the opportunity to change cards, they show their hands.  The highest ranking hand wins the round.

They then move to the hand next closest to the deck for the next round, and so on.

The rounds are worth an increasing number of points:  the first round is worth 1 point, the second is worth 2 points and the third is worth 3 points.  It is possible for one player to lose the first two rounds but win the third, and therefore tie for points. 

The deck is then shuffled, and the other player becomes the dealer for the next game.

The winner of the duel is the person with the highest number of points after a set number of games.

If the points are even at the end of the last game, a single hand of five cards is dealt and players are once again given the option of exchanging two cards from the deck.  This hand is sudden death, and if neither player has a usable poker hand the person with the highest ranking cards wins.

Red hot poker

So, was stuck home for a week and a bit recovering from an operation (nothing too serious, just the removal of an internal organ), and after the first few days – when consumption of pain killers meant my attention span was just right for daytime television – I started doing what I always do when I’m bored:  learning about random crap.

This time my random crap of choice involved (amongst other things) poker. 

I’ve never played poker, and I don’t know what the rules are and I don’t have access to the internet at home – but it just so happens I have a book of card games from the early 60s, which includes a description of poker, stud poker and some variation of poker that I’d never heard of before called “Quintet”. 

To be honest, the book is badly written and kind of hard to follow (and yet, it was so popular it had multiple reprintings).  I’m guessing I’d have an easier time of it if I was a) a “proper” card player to begin with and b) more used to reading instructions written in the 50s and 60s.

Anyway, I now know the basics of scoring in poker – what all those “flush” and “full house” things actually mean and that they have a rank, rather than a point value. 

Royal straight flush beats straight flush, which beats fours, which beats full house, which beats flush, which beats straight, which beats threes, which beats two pair, which beats pair, which beats nothing.  A straight with a King as the highest card beats straight with a Queen as the highest card.  Crap like that.

It’s almost like rock-paper-scissors, only you can’t beat a royal straight flush with a pair.  Unless you’re playing misere, in which the player with the worst hand at the end wins the pot.  But that’s not really the same thing.

Then again, maybe you can.  I know there are other versions of poker that aren’t in this book, and maybe one of them says a pair of 2s can beat a Royal Straight Flush.  I’m sure the internet will tell me when I get around to looking it up.

I have no idea if Quintet actually caught on, but it was an attempt by some guy to create a version of poker that could be played by two people.  Apparently poker isn’t worth playing at all unless you have 5-7 players and they all want to bet stakes.

As someone who a) doesn’t even play games to win, let alone playing for “stakes”, and b) doesn’t have very many friends, I’m guessing the odds that I’ll ever play an actual game of poker are slim.

But this Quintet thing was just far too unnecessarily complicated for my liking.  It involves two piquet packs to start off with, and quite frankly I’ve never been bothered with games that involved multiple packs of cards.

So the next post outlines my simplified version, designed using the same principles (a battle of wits between two players using poker scoring), but with less fuss and bother.  It's oddly addictive, even if you're just playing by yourself (right hand vs left hand).

Tennis + Soccer = Tenner?

One of my biggest problems is the fact that I keep coming up with stupid ideas for games that would probably be totally awesome... but I don't know anyone who would be dumb enough to play with me.

I was watching hurling the other day (a truly wonderful game - I tell you, those Irish kids really know how to play) when I had another one of my "how would you play that if you didn't have any of the right stuff?" moments.

This is the same urge that makes me want to create a cut-down version of Gaelic Football to run on a normal soccer pitch.  And it is fraught with the same problems.  Sure, I could easily come up with rules and things, but then I'd need to convince people to play it - and, quite frankly, I just don't know any people.

Well, I know a couple of people, but they're really boring and don't go in for crazy sport crap.

Anyway, one thought lead to another and eventually this came to me:

"Do you know what would be awesome?  Soccer, but played with a tennis ball and tennis racquets."

Hurling is, you see, essentially Gaelic football played with what looks like a softball and some deformed hockey sticks.  Apart from the ball itself and what you physically do with it, the games are basically the same.  You play on the same space, following the same rules regarding things like free shots and all that, and you score the same way for the same number of points.

So, if you carried this principle over to soccer, essentially everything would be the same, except you'd have a tennis ball and people would be whacking it across the pitch instead of kicking it.

Following hurling's lead, you would be able to catch the ball in your hand, and but you have to hit it to another player (either with your racquet or with an open palm or a closed fist).  You wouldn't be able to take more than three steps with the ball in your hand, but you could run as far as you like while balancing or bouncing it on your racquet.

Other players wouldn't be able to hit your body with their racquets, but trying to knock the ball off your racquet would be fair game.

Quite frankly, I think this game would be a bucket of fun to watch and play.

You'd need a soccer pitch (every town has one), tennis racquets (easy enough to get), tennis balls (preferably some colour other than green - but still perfectly obtainable) and possibly helmets of some description (unlike hockey, the racquets will be flailing about at head height, so the odds of getting hit in the head would be high).

All of these things are doable.  This game could be played tomorrow.

I offer it to whoever is willing to make it work.  Especially if you send me a link to the Youtube footage.  Go forth and play - and try to come up with a better name than "tenner".

Target petanque

So, the other day I was stuck at home, studying for an exam, and the weather was rather inclement.  This did give me the opportunity to use the word "inclement" (which is always fun), but also meant I couldn't go for a walk.

I was planning on studying steadily for several hours (ppft!  like that was ever going to happen) and then go for a walk.  I'm very easily distracted at the best of times.  Give me a rainy day and all I want to do is play.

And, for some reason, there's nothing like telling my brain that it desperately needs to focus on something important to get those eureka moments regarding other issues that are of a) no relevance to the task at hand, and b) no importance in the grand scheme of things.

So, while trying to cram separable and inseparable verbs into my head (I understand the principle, but I don't know the vocabulary), I "discovered" a new in door game that's potentially fun for the whole family.

I'd like to say I invented it but, quite frankly, it's so obvious and simple that I'm pretty sure someone has already done that, so I'm going to say "discovered".  And, on the odd chance no one has already patented the darn thing and is attempting to make money out of it as I speak, I'm giving the idea away for free.

Any enterprising soul who wants to make a version of this to sell can go ahead and do so, but it's a bit DIY, really, and anyone can do it as long as they have some juggling balls or hacky-sacks/footbags around the place.

I call it "target petanque", and it's kind of like a cross between petanque and curling.  And a little bit indoor bowling for people with limited space.

You will need:

• Two pieces of paper (or even just one)
• Some highlighters or coloured pens
• Two or three juggling balls (the bean-bag kind) or hacky-sacks/footbags per player
• A hallway or space that's approximately 1 pace wide and at least six paces long.

This is how you play:

1. Using the coloured pens, draw a target on each sheet of paper - a vertical/horizontal cross (+) with a circle around the center that has a radius about the size of one of your balls (so, in theory, two balls could fit side-by-side inside the circle).
2. Put one target at one end of the hallway, take six long steps (paces) and put the other target at that point (perhaps put another mark at the six-pace point for the younger/shorter members of the family).  Decide which areas are "out of bounds".
3. Assemble players into two teams.
4. Stand behind one target and, with your feet planted firmly on the ground, toss the balls underhand towards the farther target.
5. Like petanque, each team takes a turn to toss initially.  If team A's ball is closer to the target than team B's ball, team B keeps tossing until they have the closest ball.  Then team A tosses until they have the closest ball, and so on.  
6. When all of the balls have been tossed, the winning team is the one with the ball closest to the center of the target.  They score 1 point for each ball that is closer to the center than the closest ball for the opposing team.
7. If a ball lands on or in the circle around the center of the target, it will score 2 points - regardless of whether it is the winning ball (so, a ball that lands in the circle *and* is the closest ball to the center is worth 3 points).  Any balls that end up out of bounds are not counted.
8. Players then line up behind that target, facing the opposite direction, and play again - throwing back towards the target at the other end of the hall (if space makes this awkward, they can always throw from the same point in the same direction).
9. Play back and forth from both ends, the first team to reach 13 points wins.

And that's it.  Pretty simple - and easy enough to do on a rainy day, as long as you have enough juggling balls/footbags to give each player two balls.

If I were an enterprising soul myself (which I'm not) I would make a pack with four sets of three juggling balls (three red, three yellow, three blue and three green, for example) and two prefabricated targets.  That would enable up to six people to play at one time, and also come in handy for juggling parties.

Oh...  I should totally start throwing juggling parties...

Pharmacy or Kebab?

And now, time to play everyone's favourite gameshow:  Pharmacy or Kebab?

So, is this a pharmacist or a kebab seller?

Wii is a stupid name

So, I have recently decided it's time I became a gamer.  I've been thinking about it ever since I was a kid and my mother wouldn't let me have an Atari.

It's been a long time coming, but I'm a late adopter.  I bought a netbook just after tablets took off.  I recently bought a DVD recorder, now that most devices record directly to USB (I really wanted another VCR, but they stopped making those).  I'll probably buy an iPad 2 soon...

So, in keeping with my inability to commit to knew technology, I've just bought a Wii.

Yes, that's right, a Wii.  None of your fancy-pants Wii U thingy-whatsits for me.

I ordered it online because they've stopped stocking the bundle I want in my local shops, so I haven't actually got it in my physical possession just yet.  All in good time.

I really like buying stuff online because I can't have it instantly.  There's something wonderful about expecting things, rather than just having stuff.  It makes mail interesting.  It does make me sad about not using my local shops, but I'd order stuff from them if they had better web sites.  But I digress.

I have actually been avoiding buying a Wii for many years now, because Wii is a stupid name.  I probably would have jumped much sooner if they'd stuck with "GameCube".

It's still a stupid name, but it's also less than half the price of a Playstation3 - and if I'm going to buy a seventh generation consol just as all the eighth generation stuff comes out, I'm darn-well going to buy a cheap one.

I actually want a Playstation for the playing blueray-DVDs-etc capabilities, but I can't be bothered getting a PS3 now and I'm going to wait until the PS4s have been around for a bit before I get one of those.

By then I'll probably been a confirmed Nintendo kid and never switch.  Do you know Nintendo used to make playing cards back in the 1800's?  That pleases me greatly, for some reason.

They also owned a chain of "love hotels" in the 60's, but I digress...

Visit your Home

So, here's the brief:

You won a competition in which the prize is an all expenses paid vacation in... the town where you currently live and work.

You can't trade it in for cash, transfer it to another person or change it to another location. For one week, someone is going to foot the bill for the hotel of your choice as well as any travel expenses or entry fees associated with "seeing the sights" of this city (and it's satellite suburbs).

For one week, you may as well play tourist in your own town.

Where do you stay? What do you see? Where do you go?

Two Days

I'm sorry, but the news isn't good. I'm afraid you've contracted Võlts Disease - a completely fictitious illness which is incurable and fatal. I'm afraid you only have two days to live.

If you had come to us two weeks ago, when you first experienced your symptoms, we'd have managed to diagnose you sooner, you would have known about this for the past two weeks, which might have been enough time to do things like visit places you've never seen before, but always wanted to, or read that book you've been saving for your holidays.

But, sadly, you didn't, and we didn't, and now you only have two days left.

What are you going to do with your time?